[squishington]

I think language does us a disservice here. I'm reminded of Korzybski's work in Science and Sanity. The interpretation of "truth" depends on which level of abstraction you are operating on. "Every statement is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense". The term "reality" implies a perceiver, and that perceiver is generating "reality" based on their neurological instrument, which has its own biases based on its prior experience and genetics.

[d4rkn0d3z]

I agree that language other than math fails us here. Nevertheless, I humbly try to convey thoughts that occur in me with these tools.

[an0malous]

But the problems described by the parent comment also exist in mathematical language, that’s what Godel Incompleteness is. The problem is inherent to all conceptual frameworks

[d4rkn0d3z]

I would disagree, completeness is not required consistency is all you need really. QM is consistent.

[yubblegum]

> The term "reality" implies a perceiver

No. Subjective reality is what we experience as sentients. There must be an object reality and imho that is the only statement of truth that can be uttered in language, with "language" to be understood in the sense that Werner Hisenberg uses that term.

So I'm with Bohr, Hisenberg on this matter. We can not 'presume' to speak of the Real with capital R. It exists but it can not be 'encompassed'.

No vision can encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision. Indeed, He Is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware! - Qur'an - 6.103

[rramadass]

Leave out the quran quote since that is most definitely not what Bohr/Heisenberg/Others mean when they talk about subjectivity/observation/measurement. See my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45759220

If you want to discuss Philosophical/Ontological/Epistemological concepts of Reality/Truth etc. there are far better models in Hindu/Buddhist scriptures. The submitted article itself refers to Nagarjuna's Sunyata and Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy.

[griffzhowl]

The quote seems perfectly fine in illustrating the idea that reality will always transcend our language or thought (to the extent that can be expressed in any language).

And if you appreciate Hindu scripture, that particular quote could have been lifted almost verbatim from the Upanishads.

I don't appreciate the dogmatism that is associated with a lot of orthodox Islam either, but this is something similar to a lot of conservative religious outlooks, as you can find among people identifying as Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, etc. But in fact this particular quote can be seen as antithetical to any such dogmatic position, and it's worthwhile to recognize points of agreement even though you might disagree in other areas.

[rramadass]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45761877

[yubblegum]

I find your chauvinism is what doesn't belong to HN. Bohr was familiar with Eastern scriptures so it is perfectly understandable as to why he would reference its formulations. I happen to familiar with both and I do not see any discrepency or antagonism in these scriptures. You may not benefit with such comments but it is possible that others will find it useful and informative.

[rramadass]

I dislike unnecessary religiosity being dragged in where there is no reason for it.

> I happen to familiar with both

I don't think you are. No Quantum Physicist has ever quoted anything from Quran since there is nothing there (it is the youngest of all religions being only from 7th century AD) which has not been already elaborated in Hindu/Buddhist/Greek/Chinese/Christian philosophies/worldviews. That is why most scientists quoted from those ancient scriptures. There is no need to try and hoist your opinions on them.

Moreover the article specifically mentions Carlo Rovelli drawing inspiration from Nagarjuna's Buddhist philosophy and hence that is the model we should look at to try and understand what he means (and not drag in all and sundry others).

[yubblegum]

I just saw this comment of yours. It seems you are injecting "religiosity" here.

> I don't think you are.

How could you possibly know? And frankly, with that handle, it seems you are the one with a "religious" issue.

> No Quantum Physicist has ever quoted anything from Quran

Thank you for motivating me...

[rramadass]

> It seems you are injecting "religiosity" here.

What is this, childish echolalia? The "religiosity" was right there in your totally unnecessary quote.

> How could you possibly know?

By inferring from your comment(s), duh!

> And frankly, with that handle, it seems you are the one with a "religious" issue.

What does this even mean? If you are referring to the passage i quote in my HN profile, that is the opposite of "any religiosity". Read the cited book for edification.

> Thank you for motivating me...

Hubris to laughingstock.

[peterfirefly]

Quoting the Quran in a positive light is like doing the same with Mein Kampf, except that Islam has caused a lot more deaths over the years. I'd say it's yours that doesn't belong on HN.

[thefaux]

If you are going to attack the sacred text of two billion people, it would be better to avoid a lazy comparison to Hitler. Have you read the Quran? Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged? Do you know how it had been used and abused? What is the relationship between modern science and islam? How has it been used to justify violence? How has it been to argue for peace? Have the people who have used it to justify violence understood the original meaning? How does the violence/body count compare to other dogmatic religions, especially christianity?

There is violence in every ideology. To deny this is to deny reality. Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view. That does not mean that one cannot point out the shadow side, but one should look in the mirror of one's one preferred ideology, whether that is christianity, atheism, scientism, nationalism, rationalism, etc., before casting blanket aspersions at others.

[peterfirefly]

> Do you understand the historical roots from which it emerged?

Justification of one of the biggest, fastest, and most brutal conquests in history? Because everybody who wasn't a Muslim was fair game for killing or slavery? Because all non-Muslim land really belongs to the Muslims?

That's what it actually says.

> Singling out one group as uniquely prone to violence is both uncivil and dangerous in my view.

Something that I very clearly didn't do. And there was nothing lazy about my comparison.

[polotics]

oh wow seriously?

[peterfirefly]

Of course.