Niels Bohr quotes from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr
Two sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.
As quoted by his son Hans Bohr in "My Father", published in Niels Bohr: His Life and Work (1967), p. 328
Unsourced variant: The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
As quoted in Max Delbrück, Mind from Matter: An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology, (1986) p. 167. It is the hallmark of any deep truth that its negation is also a deep truth


I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far.

For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence.

Here is a video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFvJOZ51tmc
Bohr's work

"The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer."

Well, not really -- that conclusion is not the only one that can be reached from the premise. Another possible one is that there is no reality being referred to, hence the use of images, parables, and paradoxes. There are dozens if not hundreds of other possible conclusions from that premise.


"But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality."

Correct, it does not.
However, with no objective evidence to show these claimed "realities" ARE real, there's no reason to accept that they are. Which is why they're "faith," usually based on hope, rather than facts.

"And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."

Hmm. I would suggest that the "splitting" is simply a result of how these supposed "realities" are presented, being done (as you say) not with factual, objective evidence but with subjective, unverifiable images, feelings, etc. By their own presentation, not using anything objective, they're subjective. It's not an artificial, after-the fact splitting, it's inherent in how they're presented and claimed.

Peace.

some people think quantum entanglement is subjective, especially when we consider that matter does not behave the way it is expected unless it (the matter) is aware it is being observed.

How can a photon of light be aware that it is being observed? Ask a 14 year old that question and some will think you are nuts, some will think that is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one and some really switched on 14 year olds will have a little grasp of your meaning and will divulge their limited understanding of entanglement.

Ask the same 14 year old how information can travel back and forward in time, and you will probably get similar reactions to the last question. However, quantum entanglement dictates that information MUST travel backwards in time as well as forwards for the link between the two entangled articles to be maintained.

Some science deals with objective facts. Some science (philosophy, sociology, psychology, theoretical physics, and more no doubt) deal with subjective assumptions.

Are we to discount all progress made by theoretical physicists because there is not enough objective evidence yet?

Peace, too.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> some people think quantum entanglement is
> subjective, especially when we consider that
> matter does not behave the way it is expected
> unless it (the matter) is aware it is being
> observed.

Well...not really. All that's needed to collapse the wave function is *interaction,* not "observation" by an aware observer. A photon interacting with another photon collapses the wave function of both, with no "observer" needed. And no awareness.

"Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Personally, I like applying rhetoric to religious (and philosophical) texts. Truths (with a capital T) become truths of the time in which the texts were written.

that is an excellent way of putting things :)

AB: Two sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd."

COMMENT: This is confused. First, a distinction must be made between a "truth" as expressed in a proposition of language, and "truth" as simply an ontological part of reality. In the first instance, we are dealing with language and logic. In the second instance we are dealing with reality itself. In the first instance, the opposite of a "profound truth" is inconsistent with it, and is therefore false by principles of basic logic. In the second instance, the opposite is an alternative reality. The only way such an alternative reality can itself be a "profound truth" is in an alternative universe.

AB: "Unsourced variant: The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."

COMMENT: This is another way of stating what I said above.

AB: "I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science."

COMMENT: The mystical language of religion may be used to convey one's personal experiences; i.e. one's experience of "reality." However, the question is whether that experience reflects external reality, e.g. God, or merely internal reality, i.e. one's psychological state as determined by one's brain state. Mystical language might well claim to be identifying external reality of some sort, but the obtuseness of the language does not of itself assist in making this distinction. All it does is convey that the experience is difficult to understand and identify, and that it psychologically feels like a connection to God.

AB "True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science."

COMMENT: If religion is attempting to go beyond one's personal experiences to making claims about external reality based upon those experiences, it must do something more than express such experiences in mystical language. This does not mean necessarily that it must adopt the materialist orientation of science, but it does mean that it must engage in rational argument, with the language of "evidence" as appropriately applied in the context of religion. (Which I do believe can be done)

AB: "But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."

COMMENT: See comments above. I agree that the dichotomy of "subjective" vs. "objective" is not very helpful. We can note that all human knowledge is subjective in the sense that it is based upon the human mind making inferences from human experiences. Science merely seeks to achieve a consensus as to such inferences. Of course, the fact that science is able to manipulate the external world based upon such inferences provides strong evidence that there is a reality out there to be manipulated, and an underlying natural law to be discovered. The problem with religion is that there is no clear nexus between the mystical claims, and "objective," consensual claims about external reality that can be verified in any direct sense other than the psychological.

AB "For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."

COMMENT: Well, it seems you are now stepping into a kind of poetic mysticism yourself. Psychology and epistemology certainly turn our attention to consciousness, and phenomenal experience per se. They help us to understand how the mind works, and how we acquire knowledge. By so doing, they accentuate the importance of consciousness and mind as part of reality that must be dealt with by science. But the mere fact that psychology encompasses religious experience does not of itself make religious experience a window to an external reality that encompasses God, or anything else. Notwithstanding, the fact that mystical experiences do occur, and are generally common, does suggest that they MAY reflect something real beyond the physical world revealed by our senses. After all, consciousness itself is metaphysical. Why should we not expect that consciousness might be capable of extending itself beyond mere representations of the physical world?

Good post. Thanks.