< snip >... it's becoming unwieldy

>>>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?
>
Yes, but as I said below, I don't know how to create a reality that is not just a reflection of our observations. I don't know what properties that reality must have so that it doesn't simply operate according to what we already think we know. That wouldn't prove a thing other than that it behaves as we expect it to behave.

>>>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.

Ok, then let's agree on that.

>>>>>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.

And that's where I admit I'm coming up short. Hypothesising is one thing. Creating an actuality that is consistent and not based on a possibly flawed objectivity is another entirely.

< snip again >

>>>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.

Granted. I just meant that absolute reality is not created out of our belief of how it operates.

>Are you prepared for introducing a new concept?

Nah.

>>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.

Exactly right. As I was trying to analogise with the elephant (an analogy I think you deliberately sidestepped, by the way), it is what it is and doesn't give a hoot what we think we know.

>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.

The relative truth.

< snip some more >

>>>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.

But in the absolute reality, it is an elephant. If we define our absolute reality according to our 'objectivity', then what do we have? Nothing that we can disprove, I wouldn't think.

>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.

That was an analogy, and I have to believe you understood.

The elephant represents absolute reality. The objectivity that causes us to measure it as four tree trunks is not a good representation of that absolute reality. The same might be true of our absolute reality hydrogen atom.

>>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.

And they may not be as similar as we'd like to believe. So the question still remains. How does one create a computerised version of absolute reality that actually reflects absolute reality and that may not live up to one's expectations so that it does something more than to continue to reinforce our current observations. At the moment, I'm stumped.