On further reflection, I have come to think that a "fact" may be any perceptible phenomenon that exists independent of human verification, e.g., gravity, weather, etc., which in addition exerts material influence upom behaviors. Human interaction with "facts" begins with acknowledgment of their irrebuttable universality and universibility, which "Science" then seeks to explain.
Human explanations of "facts" are NOT the "facts," just as the map is not the territory (Korzybsky, 1931). Using words to describe an or explain scientific "facts" necessarily distorts those "facts" to match the words available to describe whatever the phenomenon being described either consists or is capable of.
Which, I think, could be at the center of the Schroedinger paradox.?
No comments:
Post a Comment