blort benjamin harubin 2015 digital collage |
the value of science is undeniable,
although the achievement of absolute objectivity is impossible.
forever.
we are never going to understand the absolute truth about gravity (or whatever), but we may uncover increasingly useful laws of its operation.
what is the puzzle that jars so much as to be ignored?
it is that the machine that is formulating scientific theories and laws and making experiments and observations has unknown unknown biases and limitations.
thus there is subjectivity.
subjectivity is the limitation to a particular device or set of devices.
subjectivity (the machine that uncovers the facts) cannot therefore be separated from objectivity (just the facts, ma'am).
although we could say that something is more objective than something else
(when sharing information across a greater network, greater pattern recognition and creation ability can be achieved).
the distinction depends on the definition of the network size.
so perhaps at best the distinction between these two concepts (subjective & objective) is fuzzy at best, and not useful at worst.
when a bunch of machines are in agreement that the information they are sharing is identical- errror free- you have repetition and reproducibility, i.e., objectivity.
but for that subset of information to be useful in pattern recognition and creation, it must be corrupted, adulterated, edited and distorted, thus rendering it less "objective"- thus becoming the new information state, the new paradigm.
i'm not sure that really there is any justification for using the terms objective and subjective in an information science context, even if it's the information science of your personal experience.
thus we can strive for, instead, simultaneity (or a least, greater speed of transmission).
thus maybe we explain the hunger and expectation that c is not ultimate speed limit of the universe.
are people machines, and likewise the universe?
or would any insufficiently understood set of operational behaviors (i.e., physics stuff) (perhaps forever, on account of that people are a knock off of; a derivative of those behaviors) be indistinguishable from magic?
thus we can strive for, instead, simultaneity (or a least, greater speed of transmission).
thus maybe we explain the hunger and expectation that c is not ultimate speed limit of the universe.
are people machines, and likewise the universe?
or would any insufficiently understood set of operational behaviors (i.e., physics stuff) (perhaps forever, on account of that people are a knock off of; a derivative of those behaviors) be indistinguishable from magic?
Enter the faster-than-light speed measurements of neutrinos at CERN. If simultaneity could happen prior, then eventually, everything will be happening at once, hence no time. If no time, then no music, art is the way we decorate space, and music is the way we decorate time. No time = no music.
ReplyDeletewhy i qualified in parentheses 'greater'
ReplyDelete