>>>>The absolute atom is different from physical atoms because it doesn't need to obey the laws of physics, such as the Uncertainty Principle.
>>>
>>>I don't really see the Uncertainty Principle as a 'law of physics', but merely as a constraint we've devised to explain our inability to observe and interpret the actual underlying laws.
>>
>>How you see the uncertainty principle is radically different than how people who have PhDs in QM see the Uncertainty Principle.
>>
>>In other words, scientists don't think the way you (and I) do about the science.
>>
>>So that leaves us a question:
>>
>>How do we put your opinion to an objective test?
>>
>>How can we test that QM isn't a real law of physics?


Did you give any considering to how we could test your idea?



>>BTW, I thought we agreed that what you called "laws of physics" are not "laws of physics" but "the rules of absolute reality"?
>>
>>I thought we untangled your terminology and replaced it with something that stands up to technical scrutiny.
>>
>>But you reverted right back to your own ideas.
>
>Well, terminology is just terminology.


Words shape our ideas. They are very important.


>Don't you find it more concise to say 'Laws of Physics' than 'rules of absolute reality'? It's easier to type too.

I think accuracy is more important than convienece.

Call it "absolute laws" if you want to short hand it.



>>>>The laws of physics are recovered later as patterns that emerge from the measurements of an observer.
>
>Ok, I see what you're saying, but after all, 'laws'/'rules' not really much difference. One could just as correctly say, the rules of absolute reality are recovered later as patterns that emerge from the measurements of observers.


Sure, but does that get us any closer to testing whether or not the uncertainty principle is an absolute law or relative law?

That's the focus.


>>>Or as human explanations of why we are unable to properly observe and measure, which may or may not have anything to do with what is going on underneath.
>
>>That isn't different than what I said.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>>>>On the other hand, if one were to create such an internal AI, would that be a representative absolute reality, or just another invisible external observer? In which case, would the fact that it is predictive, be proof, or just agreement between observers.
>>>
>>>>I may not understand you correctly, but:
>>>
>>>>Agreement between observers is what makes scientific knowledge objective.
>>>
>>>Again, the Uncertainty Principle. I see it as an agreement of our lack of ability to objectively observe.
>>
>>You are using the wrong words.
>
>>You are using the word "objectively" to mean "perfectly" or "absolutely".
>
>>The word "objectively" technically means something else.
>
>>You seem to think it means what can be known or observed to something without a mind;
>
>>It technically means what can be known or observed to a network of many many minds.
>
>>Objective is not the lack of a subject; it is the inclusion of all subjects.
>
>Ok, here I think we are having a bit of a disconnect. What I mean by objectivity is clearly not what you think of as objectivity.


What I mean by objective is the same as what philosophers of science mean by objective.


>Just because a whole lot of people agree on something does not make it necessarily truth.


Truth is a new word in this discussion.

Are you prepared for introducing a new concept?


>There once was a time when everybody on the planet believed the sun revolved around the earth. Regardless of that collective belief, the 'rule of absolute reality' was otherwise.


And the only reason we "know" that is because the old theory was replaced by the new theory.

The truth changed. It evolved.

Truth is a relative concept.

There is no such thing as "truth" beyond what you believe the truth is.

There is absolute truth, and relative truth, but absolute truth is not our truth. Its not our thoughts.

Absolute truth are true facts about absolute reality.

We're in relative reality. Truth is all around us.

But it is relative. It is imperfect. It changes.

If everyone in the world believes something is true at some time, then for that time, the "truth" is what they believe.



>>>We've elevated it to a 'law' of physics, but how can we know if that agreement is anything whatever to do with what is actually happening.
>>
>>FWIW, It's not a "law".
>>
>>It's a "theory".
>
>Ok, I can get behind that.
>>
>>In any case, what is actually happening, to scientists, is dictated by the theory.
>
>>Science doesn't "know" what is really happening. It makes hypotheses that it aims to disprove.
>
>>>If two short blind men agree that the elephant is four tree trunks, does that make that elephant actually four tree trunks, or is it still an elephant?
>
>>If two short blind mind are contradicted by a million men with sight, then, *objectively*, the elephant is an elephant.
>
>And if there aren't a million men with sight, then objectively is the elephant four tree trunks?
>Subjectively, yes, objectively, no.

If all the men that exist believe the elephant is four tree trunks, then objectively, it is so.

By the correct definition of objectivity.


>The elephant is what it is and doesn't care a hoot what we or a million 'we's think of it.

I disagree.

The elephant is a mammal.

That's a true fact.

There is no such absolute thing as "a mammal".

The idea of a mammal, or the animal kingdom itself, is a theory.

It is a human construct, an abstract bit of relative knowledge created to classify some other relative knowledge.

The elephant is what a million biologists think it is.


>Which brings up a fairly large question. When you computerise your absolute perfect hydrogen atom, what properties will it have? You'll have to give it actual absolute properties, and not merely those you have objectively come to accept.


Right. The objective properties (inertia, mass, ect.) are relative measurements.

The properties of absolute atoms may have absolute counterparts to those objective properties, but they won't be identical.