Because if something is absolute, then it should stand still long enough to be measured. If an absolute thing is unable to be measured, to at least some extent, then it seems to follow that it isn’t observable. If something has an observable effect, and that effect is consistent, then it should be measurable. (Things that are not absolute, like the limit of the sine wave, need not resolve to any meaningful result, regardless of the study given them.)
Besides, who are we kidding? We’re already studying morality. When I say ‘measure’, I’m not talking about stretching a ruler up to it, you know. Cataloging the observable properties, effects and remifications of it, more like. Which, if morality is absolute, should present an increasingly more accurate description of what ‘morality’ is.
Again, why? You’re making an unsubstantiated assertion. What in the nature of “absoluteness” requires that condition?
Moreover, your argument assumes physicality. What about non-physical subjects?
Again, why? You’re making an unsubstantiated assertion.
Love is not measureable. Neither is beauty. Neither is quality. Yet all these qualities are observable, and they have definite effects in the world. (Note: I’m not claiming that any of these are necessarily absolute. I’m merely pointing out that there’s a huge difference between “observable” and “measurable.”)
—Moreover, your argument assumes physicality. What about non-physical subjects?—
I hope you are using a form of amphiboly here as well, in trying to take whatever a “non-physical” object is to be out of the range of what physics aspires to be, simply by conflating the roots of the words.
—Love is not measureable. Neither is beauty. Neither is quality. Yet all these qualities are observable, and they have definite effects in the world.—
They are judgements and feelings felt by subject individuals. If there is a process behind the working of subject individuals, then why can’t these things be measured and explained? If there is no process behind it, then what are you claiming can’t be explained? There’s nothing to explain in that case.
Oh… and could you please state what it is that you think still needs to be explained about morality?
I think the difference between “observable” and “measurable” is non existant, all the things you mention JThunder can be measured by measuring the brain activity of the observer, the measurement need not be done by a machine.
“She looks gorgeous” is a measure made by a Human of someones Beauty.
And since physics = measuring ( + lots of math and this is a measurement then this is susseptable to physics. Just we haven’t got nearly as good at measuring what brains do compared to measuring what atoms, galaxies, and the universe does.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with recent advances in evoked potentials, fMRI and PET scans that are beginning to detect and quantify (i.e. measure) various kinds of experiences, including emotions and judgements.
(e.g. Kip Smith’s recent work at Kansas State University, Scott Rauch at Massachusetts General Hospital, James Rilling at Emory University, Hans Breiter at Mass. Gen. Hospital)
This does not mean that physics can explain “everything”. But the ancient argument that nothing can quantify human experience is quickly being dismantled.
SentientMeat’s comment is being lost in the shuffle here.
Physics itself is clear that it cannot answer everthing. His example of the Uncertainty Principle is just the tip of the iceberg. There is the fact that information on the other side of an event horizon is forever beyond our reach. There is not only the unknown, there is the unknowable.
As to the ethics and morality debate … physics seems to be being used as a stand-in for science here. Physics does not provide explanations for behavior or meaning. Science has some explanations but they may be mechanisms rather than cause.
No, they don’t. They can detect brain activity associated with those experiences, but that is not the same as measuring beauty, love or quality themselves.
In which case you are measuring the brainwave activity of the observer, and not the quality in question. In other words, you are observing AN INTERMEDIATE OBSERVER, not the original subject at hand.
No, I meant what I said. If a subject is non-physical, then why should we assume that it must “stand still long enough to be measured”? The whole concept of “standing still” does not necessarily apply to non-physical items.
I didn’t say that it can’t be explained. I said that it can’t be measured. There’s a vast difference between the two terms. One could explain why a mother loves her child, for example, but that does not mean that one has measured her love.
Also, you’re insisting that the existence of some “process” automatically means that these qualities must be measurable. Again, I ask… why? Why does this necessarily follow? There is a process that leads a mother to love her child, but how does this imply that the depth of her love can be reduced to a set of numbers?
Hmmm.
If a parent is a biological computer, the data that determines the strength of ‘love’ he/she feels for his/her child must be stored somehow, or every morning the parent would have forgotten all about it -
(no doubt a similar phenomenon is recorded in pathological neurology somewhere)
So one day that feeling might be quantified, packaged and made available commercially-
(a killer app, I think they call it.)
It depends on your definition of love, JT. If we define love as “what happens when these bits of the brain go all wonky”, then yes, we can. If you believe that love causes said wonkiness but is not itself measureable, I’d like a cite.
and this is a measurement then this is susseptable to physics. Just we haven’t got nearly as good at measuring what brains do compared to measuring what atoms, galaxies, and the universe does.