Einstein on truth is objective

RBM wrote:RE: Evidence

Something traceable; direct quote or second party source as in example:



In short, Einstein and Popper both believed in an objective reality, 'out there'. That is incorrect. In spite of the denial of it, currently.

I'm surprised by the quotes from Einstein, so I went looking for his views on realism. He did go through a period of Machian positivism up to about 1905. According to Mach, everything was built up from sensations and we could only regard the so-called external world as a subjective composition or construction from sense data. However he gave that away, as he gave away induction and took on an epistemology and methodology which Popper essentially copied, or made up with the help of Einstein's example.

This essay on Russell turned up:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/einstein_russell.htm

It contains a beautiful critique of induction and also the disagreement on metaphysics that Hume promoted.

I can't find a statement about the existence of the external world but he certainly thought that speculations should be tested by experience, and if there is no external (real) world, then how could that happen?

I suppose it depends what you mean by objective reality. Certainly our perceptions are theory-dependent, so the question is whether you think the external world is objective in the sense of existing regardless of us. That is a very different matter from the question of whether our perceptions of the world depend on us, because of course they do. But they also depend on what is actually there.

rombomb wrote:

RBM wrote:RE: Evidence

Something traceable; direct quote or second party source as in example:



In short, Einstein and Popper both believed in an objective reality, 'out there'. That is incorrect. In spite of the denial of it, currently.

I'm surprised by the quotes from Einstein, so I went looking for his views on realism. He did go through a period of Machian positivism up to about 1905. According to Mach, everything was built up from sensations and we could only regard the so-called external world as a subjective composition or construction from sense data. However he gave that away, as he gave away induction and took on an epistemology and methodology which Popper essentially copied, or made up with the help of Einstein's example.

This essay on Russell turned up:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/einstein_russell.htm

It contains a beautiful critique of induction and also the disagreement on metaphysics that Hume promoted.

I can't find a statement about the existence of the external world but he certainly thought that speculations should be tested by experience, and if there is no external (real) world, then how could that happen?

I suppose it depends what you mean by objective reality. Certainly our perceptions are theory-dependent, so the question is whether you think the external world is objective in the sense of existing regardless of us. That is a very different matter from the question of whether our perceptions of the world depend on us, because of course they do. But they also depend on what is actually there.

Absolutely False - they don't depend on what is actually there as indicated by this definition of which you seem to be obfuscating so diligently:

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a conscious subject). In a simpler meaning of the term, objectivity refers the ability to judge fairly, without bias or external influence.

It is also what Lotto's words indicate there isn't a objective reality to which you dared not go with anything substantive. In addition, seen discussion in your link about 'naive realism'. That discussion also puts the lie to the 'objective reality, out there'.

Remember this is your original statement I bounced back to you:

Einstein believed (and understood it well) that...
- truth is objective (as opposed to subjective)

So far only the evens link which is only barely related, at best, about 'metaphysics's, has been moving forward versus you circular verbal dance of the rest of your content.

To be fair to you, maybe this is how you think ?

But why muse about a definition, for example, about objective reality when a link is readily available ? I would suggest it's a symptom of your 'closed-minded' thinking at work.

Regarding surprise of Einstein quotes, I'll note that the slide is from a workshop of a TOE(theory of everything) that is accomplished via a unification of metaphysics, physics and philosophy and is broad ranging content as any TOE worth it's salt (reference to Athene's 'TOE'), should be.

RBM wrote:

rombomb wrote:That is a very different matter from the question of whether our perceptions of the world depend on us, because of course they do. But they also depend on what is actually there.

Absolutely False - they don't depend on what is actually there as indicated by this definition of which you seem to be obfuscating so diligently:

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a conscious subject). In a simpler meaning of the term, objectivity refers the ability to judge fairly, without bias or external influence.

I'm a little confused here, RBM. You're stating that objective reality is not independent from the senses, but this definition seems to support the idea that objects are independent from a subjective interpreter's take on them. In other words, the objective and subjective realms are treated as discrete entities unless you go by a more esoteric system. That is to say, the physical realm is traditionally treated as real and objective. What is objective may be measured empirically by all and with the same results.

As for this quote:

... Hence it is clear that the structure of the space of physics is not, (...), anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme.”

That was the only quote that seem to definitively indicate a refutation of an objective reality independent of the mind, which seemed off. I looked into it and it apart from forum posts and the like, the only other source I could find was this: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4916.pdf

That document attributes that quote to Max Jammer — not Einstein.

Additionally, one of the forums I could trace it back to was a My Big Toe forum. It seems a little iffy when the only sources are forums which got it from the book and the book itself, besides the one which attributes it to Jammer.

Furthermore, if the one poster's statement about it being in the context of the experiment about simultaneity, then what Einstein would be talking about relativity creating several illusions depending upon your frame of reference: simultaneity doesn't truly exist (in most instances), physical shapes are variable, and time dilates. All of these are responsible for certain 'illusions' which would have fooled classical physicists such as Newton, but none of these are denying a world independent of subjective interpreters.

The first quote also has a similar problem, and also seems off. If you remove a field, which is simply a condition of a certain space, then what remains? There is still the quantum foam. But does the fabric of space have a certain physicality to it? It would most certainly seem to possess energy… and the energy of empty space is indeed the preponderant force in this universe — dark energy comprises nearly three quarters of the energy in the universe.

And if there was a true vacuum, a true void, in this universe… how does this deny an objective physical reality?

Sorry for the discombobulation, as I find it difficult to reply to Rombomb and still make sense to the reader without a lot of background content.

The definition of objective reality, was provided as a touchstone to compare other models with.

The image was provided as merely an example of traceable quotes. The content is not what I was basing an argument on as I'd already laid that foundation with the Lotto quote. As I indicated it's from a larger work and is not meant to be a freestanding argument unto itself. A error regarding a quote is not impossible, but would be difficult to acquire the source information from Tom, as he's the only one who knows where he got it.

It just so happens the image content does have some bearing on the thread topic, though. It's short lived relevance though because of Einstein's limitations of understanding as per quantum entanglement - the spooky quote that is popularly cited.

If you have interested in the specific topic that puts the lie to the objective reality belief, that would be a bunch of different links. I was more interested in addressing Rombomb's content specifically.

In general you can read up on the Virtual Reality Conjecture/Hypothesis to acquaint yourself. In addition Brian Whitworth has The Virtual Reality Conjecture, if you want physics theory.

If you want philosophy, see Nick Bostrom.

If you want Digital Physics see Ed Fredkin, to a lesser extent.

RBM wrote:

rombomb wrote:
I can't find a statement about the existence of the external world but he certainly thought that speculations should be tested by experience, and if there is no external (real) world, then how could that happen?

I suppose it depends what you mean by objective reality. Certainly our perceptions are theory-dependent, so the question is whether you think the external world is objective in the sense of existing regardless of us. That is a very different matter from the question of whether our perceptions of the world depend on us, because of course they do. But they also depend on what is actually there.

Absolutely False - they don't depend on what is actually there as indicated by this definition of which you seem to be obfuscating so diligently:

AFAIK, this is the first time you're presenting me with your understanding of what *truth is objective* means. Am I right? Or did you present this earlier and I missed it?

If this is the first time, then why do you think I'm obfuscating?

This indicates that you have a negative attitude toward discussion. You think that I'm trying to "win" this discussion or something. I'm not. Those sort of tactics are whats done in debate societies. I'm a philosopher. Philosophers don't try to "win" debates. We are truth-seekers. We seek win-win situations. You think that we are in a win-lose situation. I don't want one of those.

RBM wrote:

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a conscious subject). In a simpler meaning of the term, objectivity refers the ability to judge fairly, without bias or external influence.

I don't follow you. What then do you think our perceptions/interpretations depend on (aside from our ideas)? I think that one part of the dependency is on our sense data.

RBM wrote:
It is also what Lotto's words indicate there isn't a objective reality to which you dared not go with anything substantive. In addition, seen discussion in your link about 'naive realism'. That discussion also puts the lie to the 'objective reality, out there'.

I don't understand what you're saying there. Maybe my question above clarifies things.

RBM wrote:
Remember this is your original statement I bounced back to you:

Einstein believed (and understood it well) that...
- truth is objective (as opposed to subjective)

So far only the evens link which is only barely related, at best, about 'metaphysics's, has been moving forward versus you circular verbal dance of the rest of your content.

Why do you use the term "verbal dance"? Do you think I'm evading your criticism or something?

RBM wrote:
To be fair to you, maybe this is how you think ?

I don't know what you think I'm doing, so I don't know how to answer you. What do you think I'm doing?

RBM wrote:
But why muse about a definition, for example, about objective reality when a link is readily available ?

Which link are you referring to?

RBM wrote:
I would suggest it's a symptom of your 'closed-minded' thinking at work.

So you think I'm closed-minded because you think I am discussing wrong, and that I have bad motives, e.g. evading your criticism to save face or something. Is that it? Or what? I have yet to get a answer from anybody as to what they mean when they think I'm being closed-minded.

RBM wrote:
Regarding surprise of Einstein quotes, I'll note that the slide is from a workshop of a TOE(theory of everything) that is accomplished via a unification of metaphysics, physics and philosophy and is broad ranging content as any TOE worth it's salt (reference to Athene's 'TOE'), should be.

By "worth its salt", I think you mean Objective Truth (aka certain/absolute/unflawed). If you don't mean that, then you mean Conjectural Truth (aka yet-unrefuted guesses). Which one do you mean? Or do you mean something else?

So if you're right that Athene's TOE is "worth it's salt", then that means you have criticisms of my criticisms of Athene's theory. So what are your criticisms? If you're right about your criticisms, then I want to know them so that I can know the truth, aka change my mind.

Einstein believed (and understood it well) that...
- truth is objective (as opposed to subjective)

I'm waiting for a reply to this that confirms your assertion.

If you can provide that, then I'll re-engage. Till then the rest of my remarks/your replies, I'll leave on 'the back burner'.

So you think I'm closed-minded because you think I am discussing wrong, and that I have bad motives, e.g. evading your criticism to save face or something. Is that it? Or what? I have yet to get a answer from anybody as to what they mean when they think I'm being closed-minded.

I have not answered you because I believe that no matter what I say... you will not be able to grasp my meaning. You can argue that all day long. It is not based on anything empirical. However, my belief stems from your thinking processes.

I believe the human mind is your God. There is nothing wrong with that... I accept many different people with an open heart. But I do not think my mind is discrete from God. There are some things no words, thoughts or ideas can describe or approach.
Peace.

RBM wrote:

Einstein believed (and understood it well) that...
- truth is objective (as opposed to subjective)

I'm waiting for a reply to this that confirms your assertion.

If you can provide that, then I'll re-engage. Till then the rest of my remarks/your replies, I'll leave on 'the back burner'.

K. I retract my claim that Einstein believed that truth is objective.

Which means that Einstein believed that truth is not objective -- in other words, that there is no objective reality. (I noticed that you equated these two things so I'm currently operating under this assumption.)

In which case, Einstein is wrong, because without an objective reality, its impossible for us to use experiments to rule out (aka falsify) scientific theories.

But, maybe I still don't understand what you mean by "truth is objective" or "there exists an objective reality".

Note that my understanding of the idea that truth is objective implies that there are objective truths, not just in science but also morality. Consider this...

If you and I have the same purpose for our discussion, and if that purpose is to reach the truth, then I assert that the following is an objective truth: We should not resort to personal attacks when we disagree.

In other words, if my problem is that I want to seek the truth, and if your problem is that you want to seek the truth, then the idea of using personal attacks in a discussion is not a workable solution to our shared problem.

Do you agree? If you do agree, this means that you believe that truth is objective (at least according to my understanding of the idea that truth is objective).

(Note that i'm not insinuating that either of us have made personal attacks in our discussion. I chose the idea of personal attacks because its an easy one for us to agree on.)

More examples of objective truths in morality:

- Murder is wrong.

- Theft is wrong.

What do you think? Can we agree that these ideas are true independant of the people involved?

BlueTopaz wrote:

So you think I'm closed-minded because you think I am discussing wrong, and that I have bad motives, e.g. evading your criticism to save face or something. Is that it? Or what? I have yet to get a answer from anybody as to what they mean when they think I'm being closed-minded.

I have not answered you because I believe that no matter what I say... you will not be able to grasp my meaning.

That's a pessimistic view -- one that I don't agree with.

BlueTopaz wrote:
You can argue that all day long. It is not based on anything empirical. However, my belief stems from your thinking processes.

I believe the human mind is your God.

I don't believe in a God. So I don't know what you mean there.

BlueTopaz wrote:
There is nothing wrong with that... I accept many different people with an open heart. But I do not think my mind is discrete from God.

What do you believe God is? Like the Judea-Christian God? Or something very different?

BlueTopaz wrote:
There are some things no words, thoughts or ideas can describe or approach.
Peace.

Then how do you explain it to other people?

And if you don't explain it, then what are you doing when you communicate it to other people?

Do you just tell people to open their hearts/consciousness/mind to whatever it is you want them to discover, and expect them to discover it?

That's like saying to me: If you try the right way, you'll see that there is a God. And if you don't realize that there is a God, then you're being closed-minded.

LOL, not at all.
Let me gather my thoughts to answer you intelligently.

I understand that you do not believe in a "God". Your mind is your God because you believe all there is to know is discoverable there.

I don't believe in a Judeo-Christian God. My belief in God is not readily explainable because I have not discovered its depth myself.

Your last statement is interesting. You assume that I need to express that which cannot be expressed. That you need to accept what I accept. This is not true.

I cannot communicate it to anyone else. It is not "sayable" there are no words.
If you do not "get it" that is fine. You are fine. You are right where you are suppose to be.

I will try to attempt to explain why I feel you are closed minded.
Do you accept the possiblitity that all that you believe is either wrong or mispercieved? I am not saying that it is... it is simply that the possiblity exists.
You seem to know many things definitively. I understand that you do not agree with this... but, as you have seen, this is the impression of many who have read your very thoughtful words. You cannot know anything definitively. To think that you can is closed minded.
That is a very close miss to what I truly want to express.
Keep seeking the truth. Someday, we all find it.

Exploring the unknown world.....means you have to let go of what you know...how scary is that for some hey?

Shit I better listen to my own words here...otherwise I might be perceived as not walking my talk...

Rombomb wrote:K. I retract my claim that Einstein believed that truth is objective

Not Ok.

In fact insufficient. Indeed, an example of your verbal dancing.

I'm waiting for a reply to this that confirms your assertion.

Or

Admission that you have done the required research and on further reflection conclude your assertion is blatantly in error.

Exploring the unknown world.....means you have to let go of what you know...how scary is that for some hey?

Alethia wrote:Shit I better listen to my own words here...otherwise I might be perceived as not walking my talk...

Words of wisdom indeed. Letting go of what you know to gain so much more is exhilerating, scary, fun, terrifying, wonderful....and more depending on one's perception.

RBM wrote:

Rombomb wrote:K. I retract my claim that Einstein believed that truth is objective

Not Ok.

In fact insufficient. Indeed, an example of your verbal dancing.

I'm waiting for a reply to this that confirms your assertion.

Or

Admission that you have done the required research and on further reflection conclude your assertion is blatantly in error.

What required research? I didn't do new research besides whats in your posts and my posts.

I thought that my retraction was a formal way to say that I made a mistake. No problem.

Not only do I retract my claim, I also say that my claim was a blatant error. And that is the reason I retracted it.

Now that that is cleared up. Please answer my questions about what you mean by *truth is objective* and/or *there exists an objective reality*.

Didn't do research ?

That's not what I call engaging in dialog in good faith.

All that means is you typed some characters on your keyboard that have no bearing on your person.

That's about as shallow as one can get.

BlueTopaz wrote:I understand that you do not believe in a "God". Your mind is your God because you believe all there is to know is discoverable there.

Huh? No. The world exists independent of me. In order to do science, we need to experiment using physical evidence of the world.

BlueTopaz wrote:
I don't believe in a Judeo-Christian God. My belief in God is not readily explainable because I have not discovered its depth myself.

What ever it is that you're referring to, why do you call it a "God"?

BlueTopaz wrote:
Your last statement is interesting. You assume that I need to express that which cannot be expressed. That you need to accept what I accept. This is not true.

Then why did you say that I'm being closed-minded?

BlueTopaz wrote:
I cannot communicate it to anyone else. It is not "sayable" there are no words.

Ok, so do you talk to other people about "it"? If so, what do you talk about? How do you know you're talking about the same thing?

BlueTopaz wrote:
If you do not "get it" that is fine. You are fine. You are right where you are suppose to be.

And you don't get my worldview either, as we see below.

BlueTopaz wrote:
I will try to attempt to explain why I feel you are closed minded.
Do you accept the possiblitity that all that you believe is either wrong or mispercieved?

Yes. That is what is meant by fallibility.

BlueTopaz wrote:
I am not saying that it is... it is simply that the possibility exists.

Yes, I can be wrong about any one of my ideas.

BlueTopaz wrote:
You seem to know many things definitively.

Nothing definitively. Every thing that I know has the possibility of being flawed.

BlueTopaz wrote:
I understand that you do not agree with this...

Where did you get that idea? Clearly you don't know my position. Instead of assuming what my position is, why aren't you asking me questions to better understand my position (especially before you call me closed-minded)? Don't you think its closed-minded of you to assume all these things about my position without even asking me questions to better understand my position?

BlueTopaz wrote:
but, as you have seen, this is the impression of many who have read your very thoughtful words. You cannot know anything definitively. To think that you can is closed minded.

Which is what I've been saying. So why do you think that I'm being closed-minded?

BlueTopaz wrote:
That is a very close miss to what I truly want to express.
Keep seeking the truth. Someday, we all find it.

And if we do find it, we won't know we've found it, because in the future somebody could find a flaw in what we found, fix it, thus improving our theory.

All knowledge grows by evolution. Our theories are flawed, and they evolve to less flawed theories, to even less flawed theories, and so on.

RBM wrote:I think this state of dialog is yet incomplete.

The analysis of why you made an assertion blatantly in error as if it were unmitigated fact, remains.

So, Why ?

Scientists believe that their theories can be ruled out by experiments using physical evidence. That presupposes that there exists an objective reality that we can get physical evidence from.

A scientist who does not believe in an objective reality is a contradiction in terms.

I assumed that Einstein understood this.

Why did you think I made the mistake? To "win" an argument or something?

Why do you assume that I have malicious intent? Do you want people to assume that you have malicious intent?

RBM wrote:Didn't do research ?

That's not what I call engaging in dialog in good faith.

You're standards are different than mine. I disagree with you. I only research relevant/important things.

The discussion was about philosophy. I mentioned a few names of people that I (fallibly) knew to understand Popper's philosophy. You challenged my assertion that Einstein was one of them, but Einstein, and everybody else, is irrelevant to a discussion about epistemology and whether or not an objective reality exists. I entertained your challenge so that we could start a dialog, but so far you have refused any dialog on anything other than your challenge. Therefore...

I contend that *you* are the one who is not engaging in good faith. You don't answer my questions nor address my criticism, while expecting me to do so. Why do you do that? Do you think you have higher status than I do?

Thinking in terms of status, is a justificationist mistake.

RBM wrote:
All that means is you typed some characters on your keyboard that have no bearing on your person.

That's about as shallow as one can get.

After reading what I wrote above, do you still think I'm shallow?

Rombomb, do not be angry.

I wish you peace, joy and light.

BlueTopaz wrote:Rombomb, do not be angry.

I wish you peace, joy and light.

Your interpretation is mistaken. Why do you assume I am (or was) angry?

Rombomb wrote:You're standards are different than mine.

It's not yet clear, to me at least, that our standards are different. What is certainly different are our behaviors, as in this thread dialog.

I disagree with you.

Ok

I only research relevant/important things

You made the original assertion therefore it is 'relevant/important'.

Yet unanswered is 'Why' you made the original assertion as in my challenge all you have yet provided is Einstein of Hume's metaphysics, which is not the same. Do you agree ?

What was your motivation for making an assertion of which you could not support when challenged - I suspect, this likely goes deeper to your workings than you go. I don't know if you 'CAN' go to that place to seek the answer. (This ties together my characterization of 'shallowness' and BlueTopaz 'closedmindedness')

K. I retract my claim that Einstein believed that truth is objective

And for my place as the other half of a dialog, this is a meaningless retraction on your part, to me, as you have not done any research to learn why a retraction is the correct position - LEARNING (this result can be characterized as non-shalllowness, and open-minded skepticism having occurred) has seemingly not occurred, just some monkey-work of plunking on a keyboard, is all that has seemingly occurred.

If you can see the distinctions I've made, then some progress has been made. That progress would be a kind of 'meta-learning' (learning about learning).

Else if you can't see the distinctions I've made, for whatever limited number of reasons, then you are welcome to carry on in this thread "Einstein on truth is objective" but I will disengage.

Have a great day.

RBM wrote:

Rombomb wrote:You're standards are different than mine.

It's not yet clear, to me at least, that our standards are different. What is certainly different are our behaviors, as in this thread dialog.

I disagree with you.

Ok

I only research relevant/important things

You made the original assertion therefore it is 'relevant/important'.

I disagree. Why do you think its important just because I made an assertion?

RBM wrote:
Yet unanswered is 'Why' you made the original assertion as in my challenge all you have yet provided is Einstein of Hume's metaphysics, which is not the same. Do you agree ?

I already answered it. I said that all scientists believe that they can acquire physical evidence to rule out their theories, which presupposes that an objective reality exists to get evidence from, and I **assumed** that Einstein believes this since he and Popper were friends and their work influenced each other's. And then after you challenged my assertion, THEN I looked up stuff about Einstein's views.

RBM wrote:
What was your motivation for making an assertion of which you could not support when challenged - I suspect, this likely goes deeper to your workings than you go. I don't know if you 'CAN' go to that place to seek the answer. (This ties together my characterization of 'shallowness' and BlueTopaz 'closedmindedness')

I did support it with an explanation. And you ignored it. Why are you ignoring my explanation. That indicates that you are closed-minded.

RBM wrote:

K. I retract my claim that Einstein believed that truth is objective

And for my place as the other half of a dialog, this is a meaningless retraction on your part, to me, as you have not done any research to learn why a retraction is the correct position - LEARNING (this result can be characterized as non-shalllowness, and open-minded skepticism having occurred) has seemingly not occurred, just some monkey-work of plunking on a keyboard, is all that has seemingly occurred.

Because I do not consider Einstein's view important. *You* apparently do.

RBM wrote:
If you can see the distinctions I've made, then some progress has been made. That progress would be a kind of 'meta-learning' (learning about learning).

After reading my post, do you think I've understood your distinctions?

RBM wrote:
Else if you can't see the distinctions I've made, for whatever limited number of reasons, then you are welcome to carry on in this thread "Einstein on truth is objective" but I will disengage.

Have a great day.

K, so have I understood? If so, continue engaging.

If not, then help me understand these distinctions.

Rombomb wrote:I disagree. Why do you think its important just because I made an assertion?

'Important' in this case means to achieve communication to another, which is a common goal for a BB.*

If my assumption is incorrect that would indicate that something else is your goal - and my presence has no bearing on the communication process.

I did support it with an explanation. And you ignored it

In part your reply

It contains a beautiful critique of induction and also the disagreement on metaphysics that Hume promoted.

I can't find a statement about the existence of the external world but he certainly thought that speculations should be tested by experience, and if there is no external (real) world, then how could that happen?

Firstly, by your own description is something OTHER than what applied to the original assertion.
There's nothing in there for me to ignore - you couldn't find what you 'assumed' about the scientist Einstein.

All in all, that's not even an 'explanation'. Even if that's how you reference to it.

Why are you ignoring my explanation. That indicates that you are closed-minded.

This remark is childish.

Because I do not consider Einstein's view important. *You* apparently do

Your assumption as to my view on Einstein is immaterial due to you introducing the original assertion - and then starting a thread on it.

This is a repeat statement, refer to *(asterisk) above. Repetition is and indication you have nothing new to add and thus are said to be 'going in circle's'.

Communicating, in circles with someone who makes childish remarks is not an interest of mine.

RBM wrote:

Rombomb wrote:I disagree. Why do you think its important just because I made an assertion?

'Important' in this case means to achieve communication to another, which is a common goal for a BB.*

Answering questions and addressing criticism is important. Do you agree?

What does BB mean? I looked it up in urban dictionary but too many definitions and none seem to fit.

RBM wrote:
If my assumption is incorrect that would indicate that something else is your goal - and my presence has no bearing on the communication process.

Which assumption? I don't follow what you're saying.

RBM wrote:

I did support it with an explanation. And you ignored it

In part your reply

It contains a beautiful critique of induction and also the disagreement on metaphysics that Hume promoted.

I can't find a statement about the existence of the external world but he certainly thought that speculations should be tested by experience, and if there is no external (real) world, then how could that happen?

Firstly, by your own description is something OTHER than what applied to the original assertion.
There's nothing in there for me to ignore - you couldn't find what you 'assumed' about the scientist Einstein.

Thats not what I was talking about when I said you 'ignored'. I'm talking about what objective reality *is*. So far you've refused discussing this. Once we agree on what it *is*, then we can talk about whether or not Einstein believes in "it".

At one point you gave a definition of objective reality, but you said something in that post that got me thinking that you don't understand what objective reality means. So I asked you questions for clarification, and you evaded my questions. That is close-minded.

I tried to get you to engage with me so that we can agree on what objective reality means, so that we could then talk about whether or not Einstein believed in it. But you refused. So I played your game by retracting my assertion thinking that we'd be able to continue, but I was wrong -- you didn't want to let it go. And I went with you anyway, yet I'm the one being called close-minded.

RBM wrote:
All in all, that's not even an 'explanation'. Even if that's how you reference to it.

You're conflating my first response with my second response. I should have been more clear by quoting myself.

RBM wrote:

Why are you ignoring my explanation. That indicates that you are closed-minded.

This remark is childish.

By "childish", I assume you mean 'not serious'. I disagree. I am serious.

Writing off someone's ideas as non-serious is one way that people shield themselves from criticism. Its close-minded.

RBM wrote:

Because I do not consider Einstein's view important. *You* apparently do

Your assumption as to my view on Einstein is immaterial due to you introducing the original assertion - and then starting a thread on it.

This is a repeat statement, refer to *(asterisk) above. Repetition is and indication you have nothing new to add and thus are said to be 'going in circle's'.

Communicating, in circles with someone who makes childish remarks is not an interest of mine.

I did some more research (by asking a friend).

This is a paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen:

http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/Pictures/EPR-paper.pdf

in which they write

Any serious discussion of a physical theory must take into account the distinction between the objective reality, which is independent of any theory, and the physical concepts with which the theory operates.

So Einstein thought that reality is objective.

Had you engaged with me on what you mean by objective reality, I think you would have agreed that to be a scientist, that presupposes the belief in an objective reality. But you refused to engage with me on this point. Why? That is close-minded thinking.

What *were* you thinking instead? Why were you so consumed by this? Were you just hell-bent on proving that I'm wrong? Why?

I conceded that point to you, but you still insisted on understanding *why* I was wrong, and why I made the assertion to begin with. Were you just hell-bent on proving that I have a thinking error? Did that thinking cloud your mind to searching for your own thinking errors?

You should be looking for flaws in my thinking AND your thinking. That means addressing my questions and criticisms. Not doing this is close-minded.

Note that I've addressed *all* your questions and criticisms. You have said that you don't agree that I've addressed them sufficiently, so you provided more questions and criticisms. Which is fine, and I addressed those too. And if you still don't think I've sufficiently addressed them, then ask/say more, and I'll address them. This is one way to be open-minded. I shouldn't assume that you're wrong that I have a thinking error, which is why I continue addressing your questions and criticisms because you *might* be right.

On a side note: Your use of the term "childish" is offensive to children. By "childish", I assume you meant "not serious". Your remark implies that all children are not to be taken seriously. That is horrible! Many children are more serious/responsible/rational than many adults. Why? Because children in general have fewer anti-rational memes. For example, children don't see themselves as having higher status than adults, but many adults think in terms of status. And this type of thinking causes one to shield his ideas from criticism from people who they consider to have less status. Its the standard justificationist mistake.

rombomb wrote:Scientists believe that their theories can be ruled out by experiments using physical evidence. That presupposes that there exists an objective reality that we can get physical evidence from.

A scientist who does not believe in an objective reality is a contradiction in terms.

This seems like a pretty sound rationale, although you could argue theoretical physicists often are more interested in rational evidence being elegant and consistent than empirical evidence lining up. Subjects such as string theory have ties to the physical without being falsifiable, at least for the time being. Einstein's theories, however, were falsifiable; they were, after all, describing the physical world — but did he think of this world as nothing more than an illusion projected by subjects? Whether or not he believed in the importance of physical evidence to support a hypothesis, or if he believed you were measuring an aspect of the mind, a shared (or perhaps not shared, if one is a solipsist) illusion, are two different questions.

The only time (all right, the only time I'm aware of) he ever refuted physical evidence over his philosophical views was when he denied the stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics and fought against it tooth and nail in Copenhagen, denying it to the grave and stating our inability to understand the outcomes of wavefunction collapses . Although it is perhaps not out of the question that the behavior of quantum particles is not truly random and that there is a predictable underlying pattern to this we are not privy to (although this interpretation had also been refuted by Einstein's contemporaries), the physical evidence we possessed — and still do — show no trace of a deterministic quantum universe. (Yes, large objects do technically possess a quantum superposition, as well, although there isn't a diffuse probabilistic cloud. In practice, the large world appears deterministic, but objects still do possess these qualities.)

Once again, when Einstein said reality was an illusion, he could have been referring to the illusions creates by relativistic reference frames or quantum mechanics, but does that really make the external world an illusion, or our subjective interpretations of reality flawed? In such a context, the implications of that example clearly indicate how flawed subjects are in deciphering the world through the senses, not that objects do not exist; it wouldn't have any metaphysical bearings. In any case, there is quite a bit of equivocation on both sides and little in the way of direct, cited evidence to suggest Einstein's position either way, and I, too, am just replying based on what I understand off-handedly.

And what do you know? There's a nice Wikipedia article on touching on some of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Realism

Once again, as far as I can tell, Einstein doesn't seem to really be taking a position on philosophical realism. He was a different sort of realist. He was interested in physics, not metaphysics; ergo, the likelihood any of his quoted statements pertain to the latter are unlikely.

The original assertion was that Einstein believed in objective truth, no? As a scientist he certainly believed in the importance of fallibility as described by Rombomb. So if that what was intended by "Einstein believed truth was objective", it seems like quite a sound statement. But Einstein's metaphysical stance? I would say one of us is going to need to keep digging. Now, where does the onus lie…?

Dreamspace wrote:

rombomb wrote:Scientists believe that their theories can be ruled out by experiments using physical evidence. That presupposes that there exists an objective reality that we can get physical evidence from.

A scientist who does not believe in an objective reality is a contradiction in terms.

This rationale is pretty sound, although you could argue theoretical physicists often are more interested in rational evidence being elegant and consistent than empirical evidence lining up. Subjects such as string theory have ties to the physical without being falsifiable, at least for the time being.

Falsifiability is about being falsifiable in principle. That means that in the future, its possible that we have the technology to do the measurements.

Dreamspace wrote:
Einstein's theories, however, were falsifiable; they were, after all, describing the physical world — but did he think of this world as nothing more than an illusion projected by subjects? Whether or not he believed in the importance of physical evidence to support a hypothesis, or if he believed you were measuring an aspect of the mind, a shared (or perhaps not shared, if one is a solipsist) illusion, are two different questions.

I don't understand. If there is no objective reality, then what would our measurements be measuring?

Dreamspace wrote:
The only time (all right, the only time I'm aware of) he ever refuted physical evidence over his philosophical views was when he denied the stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics and fought against it tooth and nail in Copenhagen, denying it to the grave and stating our inability to understand the outcomes of wavefunction collapses . Although it is perhaps not out of the question that the behavior of quantum particles is not truly random and that there is a predictable underlying pattern to this we are not privy to (although this interpretation had also been refuted by Einstein's contemporaries), the physical evidence we possessed — and still do — show no trace of a deterministic quantum universe.

The MWI interpretation of QM says that there is randomness (i.e. that determinism is false). See _The Beginning of Infinity_ by David Deutsch, or ask questions on the BoI list:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/beginning-of-infinity

Dreamspace wrote:
(Yes, large objects do technically possess a quantum superposition, as well, although there isn't a diffuse probabilistic cloud. In practice, the large world appears deterministic, but objects still do possess these qualities.)

Once again, when Einstein said reality was an illusion, he could have been referring to the illusions creates by relativistic reference frames or quantum mechanics, but does that really make the external world an illusion, or our subjective interpretations of reality flawed?

Our perceptions are theory-laden, thus they are fallible (aka flawed).

Dreamspace wrote:
In such a context, the implications of that example clearly indicate how flawed subjects are in deciphering the world through the senses, not that objects do not exist; it wouldn't have any metaphysical bearings. In any case, there is quite a bit of equivocation on both sides and little in the way of direct, cited evidence to suggest Einstein's position either way, and I, too, am just replying based on what I understand off-handedly.

As we all always are.

For the record, Einstein was adamantly against QM and for 'objective reality, out there'.

As a matter of fact, the quotes at the start of this thread, in the original slide presentation, as Tom explains, is where Einstein got stuck in proving his belief. As Tom indicates in that workshop, Einstein spent the last 20 years of his career working on this aspect. And he went to his biological grave unsuccessful.

My original query was to find out what, if anything, Rombomb's assertion was based on. Just some blah, blah, blah of computer typing or if this thread's OP understood why Einstein thought what he did. Then if the OP ACTUALLY understood why Einstein was of that position.

Most people having these type of discussions are quite familiar with Einsteins 'spooky' quote and his 'God/dice' quote.

Much science has been done, since '35 when EPR was written trying to prove Einstein's belief in objective reality 'out there' as correct, through the mechanism of 'hidden variables'.

But due to the mechanism of free will individuals can deny the science and it's data, quite readily if one wishes to do so.

rombomb wrote:Falsifiability is about being falsifiable in principle. That means that in the future, its possible that we have the technology to do the measurements.

It's not certain we ever will, but either way you've got quite a large number of physicists pouring countless hours into designing abstract models that will most likely never be tested in their lifetimes.

rombomb wrote:I don't understand. If there is no objective reality, then what would our measurements be measuring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pearson#Einstein_and_Pearson.27s_work

rombomb wrote:The MWI interpretation of QM says that there is randomness (i.e. that determinism is false). See _The Beginning of Infinity_ by David Deutsch, or ask questions on the BoI list:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/beginning-of-infinity

Yes, Rombomb, I am aware of the many worlds interpretation and David Deutsch's work. MWI is predicated by the observed behavior of quantum physics. To assert the universe is intrinsically random because of a hypothesis based on these observations would be moving away from the root.

rombomb wrote:Our perceptions are theory-laden, thus they are fallible (aka flawed).

There was no reason to reiterate this, and given the quoted block it was not apropos, either. Try to actually digest what it is you read.

rombomb wrote:

Dreamspace wrote:
In such a context, the implications of that example clearly indicate how flawed subjects are in deciphering the world through the senses, not that objects do not exist; it wouldn't have any metaphysical bearings. In any case, there is quite a bit of equivocation on both sides and little in the way of direct, cited evidence to suggest Einstein's position either way, and I, too, am just replying based on what I understand off-handedly.

As we all always are.

As we all always are what? Giving glib responses?

RBM wrote:For the record, Einstein was adamantly against QM …

Well, he was against the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. But nowadays I do suppose 'QM' and 'indeterminism' are considered synonymous.

RBM wrote:… and for 'objective reality, out there'.

As a matter of fact, the quotes at the start of this thread, in the original slide presentation, as Tom explains, is where Einstein got stuck in proving his belief. As Tom indicates in that workshop, Einstein spent the last 20 years of his career working on this aspect. And he went to his biological grave unsuccessful.

Are there any citations besides Thomas Campbell himself? This slide doesn't really convincingly prove Einstein didn't believe in an external reality, and I can't find any other evidence Einstein took such a position. I'm sure Campbell is a bright fellow, but I won't take this on his authority alone.

RBM wrote:Most people having these type of discussions are quite familiar with Einsteins 'spooky' quote and his 'God/dice' quote.

Yes, but these quotes are about determinism or local realism, not metaphysical realism.

RBM wrote:Much science has been done, since '35 when EPR was written trying to prove Einstein's belief in objective reality 'out there' as correct, through the mechanism of 'hidden variables'.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. You see belief in objective reality (metaphysical realism) and determinism as one in the same? I don't think it is wise to confuse these two ideas.

RBM wrote:But due to the mechanism of free will individuals can deny the science and it's data, quite readily if one wishes to do so.

So you're asserting Einstein was a compatibilist (a determinist which believes this philosophy and free will are reconcilable), as well as an idealist? This is an odd hodgepodge set of beliefs that don't really go hand in hand with one another. That is, their relation to one another is not self-evident: determinism is traditionally seen as something which may preclude free will, if anything; indeterminism refutes local realism and not metaphysical realism/materialism; and the choice to deny empirical evidence doesn't seem to predicate free will as much as dereism.