The Striving to Survive with Well-Being is an Opinion?

[Skepdick]

"What result will we get if we measure the charge of an atom?" is an objective question in a way that "is it morally wrong to drown a sack of kittens?" is not.

It's an "objective question" only once you commit yourself to an ontology in which there are such entities as "atoms" and "atoms" have "charge". e.g That's only true in the context of classical physics, it's not true in the context of quantum physics.

"atoms" are merely emergent phenomena, and then you have a bunch of unsolved problems, not the least questions about the determinism of measurement.

Of course, you've probably stopped keeping abreast with recent developments in physics, and now you are just entertaining yourself on a Philosophy board as if your opinions are even relevant. It must be upsetting knowing that all of your "knowledge" is now outdated and inapplicable.

John Conway on Free Will

[FlashDangerpants]

I would hope that physicists are able to deal with their objective questions without regard to my subjective and uniformed opinions, it would be much more upsetting to find out this is not the case and that somehow science was on hold until I joined in, humanity would be doomed.

This does nothing at all to invalidate my point.

[Skepdick]

This does nothing at all to invalidate my point.

Apparently nothing could ever invalidate your points.

You are ultra thpethial.

[FlashDangerpants]

The measure of what makes a question objectively answerable via observation is not whether or not FlashDangerpants would understand the answer.

[Skepdick]

The measure of what makes a question objectively answerable via observation is not whether or not FlashDangerpants would understand the answer.

You are tripping up over yourself.

The question re: the spin of an atom is not answerable via observation. It's answerable via a measurement procedure. (and less relevant, the answerability of the question can only be determined within an FSK. In an ontology which doesn't admit "atoms" and "spins" the question is incoherent)

So what is the measurement of what makes a measurement procedure objective?

[FlashDangerpants]

The measure of what makes a question objectively answerable via observation is not whether or not FlashDangerpants would understand the answer.

You are tripping up over yourself.

The question re: the spin of an atom is not answerable via observation. It's answerable via a measurement procedure. (and less relevant, the answerability of the question can only be determined within an FSK. In an ontologically which doesn't admit "atoms" and "spins" the question is incoherent)

So what is the measurement of what makes a measurement procedure objective?

I don't need to care about any of that. Whatever measurement procedure you are describing presumably measures a feature of an atom in some manner that I don't understand. It would seem that this measurement is sufficently objective that the action is repeatable elsewhere, that being the custom and habit of sciency people as I uderstand it.

Henry Quirk and Veritable Ambulance have both explicitly argued that under their (otherwise incompatible) moral FSK things, it is a fact that drowning kittens is not immoral. Does your rendition of moral fact agree with them in this matter?

[Skepdick]

I don't need to care about any of that. Whatever measurement procedure you are describing presumably measures a feature of an atom in some manner that I don't understand. It would seem that this measurement is sufficently objective that the action is repeatable elsewhere, that being the custom and habit of sciency people as I uderstand it.

Then morality is objective.

Since I have offered you an elsewhere-repeatable measurement procedure to distinguish a universe in which murder is moral; from a universe in which murder is amoral; from a universe in which murder is immoral.

But of course, that's suddenly going to be insufficient for you.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't need to care about any of that. Whatever measurement procedure you are describing presumably measures a feature of an atom in some manner that I don't understand. It would seem that this measurement is sufficently objective that the action is repeatable elsewhere, that being the custom and habit of sciency people as I uderstand it.

Then morality is objective.

Since I have offered you an elsewhere-repeatable measurement procedure to distinguish the "morality", "immorality" and "amorality" of murder.

But of course, that's suddenly going to be insufficient for you.

if it's not immoral it's not murder.

exactly which killings count as murder rather than justified killings seems to be a disputable quality with no objective answer, and I don't recall you ever having an example that fixes that problem. Again, Ventricle Aeroengine has an FSK thing that tells us that all killings are wrong. Henry Quirk has one that requires us to kill slavers and thieves, both of those list abortion as murder, while the medical profession does not. if you don't have a factual solution to resolve which of their claims is false, you don't have an objective measurement procedure at all.

[Skepdick]

if it's not immoral it's not murder.

exactly which killings count as murder rather than justified killings seems to be a disputable quality with no objective answer, and I don't recall you ever having an example that fixes that problem.

Immaterial objection. All scientific measurements have inherent uncertainty.

if you don't have a factual solution to resolve which of their claims is false, you don't have an objective measurement procedure at all.

As predicted. Suddenly you move the goal posts for measurement.

I do have a measurement procedure. It's repeatable. The question remains then.

So what is the measurement of what makes a measurement procedure objective?

[Skepdick]

I don't need to care about any of that. Whatever measurement procedure you are describing presumably measures a feature of an atom in some manner that I don't understand.

Perhaps whatever measurement procedure I am describing presumably measures a feature of morality in some manner that you don't understand.

It would seem that this measurement is sufficently objective that the action is repeatable elsewhere, that being the custom and habit of sciency people as I uderstand it.

The measurement I have put forth is sufficiently objective that the action is repeatable elsewhere. That being the custom and habit of sciency people as you understand it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's a question:

Is it immoral to drown a sack of unwanted kittens?

How do you propose to measure the answer?

[Skepdick]

Here's a question:

Is it immoral to drown a sack of unwanted kittens?

How do you propose to measure the answer?

Yes, it's immoral. I've measured 1 bit of information.

Now tell me how you distinguish "objective" from "subjective" measurements.

And if you want an analogous problem:

I measure the electron-spin using my apparatus and it says up-spin.
You measure the electron-spin using your apparatus and it says down-spin.

Whose measurement is "wrong" ?

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's a question:

Is it immoral to drown a sack of unwanted kittens?

How do you propose to measure the answer?

Yes, it's immoral. I've measured 1 bit of information.

Ok, now persuade Henry Quirk and Vertiginous Aquarium that you have used your powers of measuring 1 bit of information to discover that their FSK things are factually incorrect.

Now tell me how you distinguish "objective" from "subjective" measurements.

And if you want an analogous problem:

I measure the electron-spin using my apparatus and it says up-spin.
You measure the electron-spin using your apparatus and it says down-spin.

Whose measurement is "wrong" ?

Presumably mine, I am not capable of measuring any such thing.

[Skepdick]

Ok, now persuade Henry Quirk and Vertiginous Aquarium that you have used your powers of measuring 1 bit of information to discover that their FSK things are factually incorrect.

What does this have to do with persuasion?

Either their measurement apparatus returns the same result or it doesn't.

That it returns different values at different times/measurement it doesn't mean it's not being measured.
Maybe they decide to use my instrument to calibrate theirs - who knows?

Presumably mine, I am not capable of measuring any such thing.

Presumably you can't tell. Till you standardise/calibrate instruments.

But also, presumably, electrons can have up spin and down-spin. At different times of measurement.

Today you want to kill kittens - tomorrow you don't. Shit changes!

[Terrapin Station]

As such whatever is claimed within a FSK cannot be an opinion but rather it is an objective statement.

So the first problem here is that statements can't be objective. They can be about objective things, but the statement itself can't be objective.

Principle of Charity?

I stated whatever is claimed [concluded] within a FSK which obviously have to presented in a statement conditioned upon the FSK and not of the individual's opinion.

Hence why we shouldn't be too "charitable" here and say, "Oh, well, surely he meant that statements can be about objective things, but the statement itself isn't objective." Because the looseness is leading you to conclude that what counts as well-being, as well as striving to survive as opposed to alternatives, are objectively determined somehow rather than being "opinions."

What is objective generally is;
: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

And there is nothing that counts as "well-being" where that's not "distorted" by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations. Hence this isn't something objective.