Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
That’s why I rarely engage with keiths.
Neil,
I thought your recent withdrawal might have had something to do with failing in three separate ways to justify your claim that the SAM and YSM are incommensurable:
Actually, I guess it could be both. Perhaps you found it “no fun” when your arguments failed, and instead of simply acknowledging that and revising your position, you withdrew.
As usual, you are completely wrong about that.
You have a very rigid way of looking at things. And you are extremely dogmatic about insisting that your way is the only way.
For example, I looked at that recent series of questions that you posed to Flint. Your questions quite clearly demonstrate that you are misunderstanding what Flint says. So Flint attempted to address this, and you falsely accused him of evasion.
This rigidity and dogmatism is why I say that you have a very theistic viewpoint.
TSZ definitely isn’t for everyone. The people who enjoy participating at TSZ, or who find it useful to participate, are those who are comfortable both with discussing and criticizing the views of others and with having their own views discussed and criticized. Not everyone likes it, and that’s OK. To each his own.
Some people may prefer just to read, without participating. Others may not find TSZ interesting, useful, or entertaining, and may decide not to stick around. And they shouldn’t, if they aren’t getting anything out of it. Life’s too short to waste time on things that aren’t serving you in any way.
In your case, Neil, I’ve noticed that you seem to be fine with criticizing the views of others — for example, the intelligent design proponents we’ve debated over the years — but you can be pretty resentful when your own views are in the spotlight. That’s a shame. Even though there can be some short-term discomfort when others point our your mistakes, you can benefit from exposing your views to criticism. Others may spot problems you’ve missed, and if their scrutiny doesn’t uncover any flaws, it can increase your confidence that you’re on the right track. That’s a benefit of debate generally, and of TSZ as a site where such debate can take place.
I’m still interested in hearing why you think a Kuhnian take on incommensurability applies to the SAM and the YSM, and why you think that my conception of truth and my views on objective reality imply, assume, or somehow connect to theism. Explaining that would mean exposing your arguments to criticism, it’s true, but is that such a terrible thing? Do you want to continue believing those things if they aren’t true and you can’t support them?
Neil:
No, you’ve gone well beyond that. For example, you’ve written:
You aren’t saying that I’m being dogmatic, like a theist. You’re actually claiming that I’m assuming theism and dualism. That strikes me as obviously wrong, so I’m interested in understanding your reasoning.
You took a stab at explaining it in that same comment, writing:
Does that still reflect your view?
Neil:
Could you give some specific examples?
Here we have a good example of you framing your question in terms which make a good faith response difficult. I have not been saying that reality does not exist. Therefore, your question is meaningless as phrased. The best reply, which in my view IS an evasion, is that you stubbed your toe on a chair.
Now, rather than ask leading questions which can only be answered in your terms, why don’t you ever bother to ask me what I’m trying to say? Hint: I am NOT trying to say reality doesn’t exist. I’m trying to say something quite different, and failing to get it across.
Neil is exactly correct in saying “Your questions quite clearly demonstrate that you are misunderstanding what Flint says. So Flint attempted to address this, and you falsely accused him of evasion.”
For what it’s worth, I regard “reality” as a rather abstract theory. I have been reluctant to use that word, because in the minds of many people a theory is an imperfect fact, or a plausible speculation. Creationists commonly reject evolution because it’s “only a theory” and has never been “proved”. This rejection only illustrates that creationists have no clue what a theory actually is in science.
So OK, in science, a theory is a proposed explanation for some significant body of relevant observations. It is NOT a fact. A theory, in science, can never be proved. This is because a theory CAN be DISproved. Logically, if any theory is capable of disproof, it is incapable of proof. It’s not like a theorem in math.
In the history of science, some theories have indeed been disproved, but this is uncommon, because at any given time, existing theories account for all relevant observations. There must be something to them. So much more common is for a theory to require extension or other revision. It’s rarely discarded altogether. Einstein’s gravity did not overthrow Newton’s gravity, it simply extended Newton’s ideas into realms Newton wasn’t familiar with. Newton’s principles of gravity remain a subset of Einstein’s rules.
Since a theory explains all relevant evidence, if reality is a theory, it must explain everything known. It doesn’t quite do that, and keiths agreed that there is much about reality we haven’t learned, can’t explain, or do not understand. Like any theory, reality must be modified as exceptions or additions are encountered. But also like any good theory, it makes predictions. And one of those predictions is that there cannot be any true paradoxes. Our theoretical reality is internally consistent everywhere at all times. If true paradoxes are discovered, the theory must be modified accordingly. So far, no true paradoxes have been discovered, but apparent paradoxes have, leading us to improve our techniques.
It seems like regarding reality as a fully-supported theory has been misconstrued as claiming that reality doesn’t exist! Earlier I used the term “model” instead of “theory” but that wasn’t understood as I intended, and instead was rejected because of an apparent conviction that a model must be static. So I’ll stick with “theory”. But just as evolution being a theory doesn’t mean evolution doesn’t exist, reality being a theory doesn’t mean reality doesn’t exist!
So is evolution as described by the theory “real”? Of course – it’s certainly one of the most thoroughly tested and best attested theories ever devised. Yes, a fossil rabbit in the precambrian would be hard to reconcile with the theory of evolution, and time travel into the past would be hard to reconcile with our theory of reality. Both theories are capable of falsification.
Anyway, my concern is that reality is being reified – that it is being shifted from a theory into actual concrete thing. A set of facts. But a theory is an explanation of facts, and can never be a fact itself. It explains why chairs appear solid and can stub toes. (And that part of the theory has also undergone modification, as we’ve learned that chairs have almost nothing solid about them, and the toe was actually stubbed on an electromagnetic field.)
I suppose one could argue that the nature of solids has always been what it is, independent of any theory. That in developing more comprehensive understandings, we’re only improving our understanding of the underlying reality. But that notion – that there’s an objective reality behind our best understanding – is itself a necessary element of the theory of reality!
This is bullshit.
I’m happy to discuss my view. That’s why I brought them up.
What I resent, is when you misconstrue my view, and then demand, ad nauseum, that I defend what I do not believe but what you have misconstrued me as believing.
This is pretty much my view of reality. And I’m responding to your entire post, not just the sentence that I quoted.
Neil:
You’re always welcome, if you think I’ve misconstrued your position, to say so. I encourage you to do so. However, based on my past experience with you, I would also request the following:
1) When you think I’ve misconstrued you, explain. Say specifically what you think I’m claiming about your position, and then say where you actually stand. Far too often you’ll cry “misconstrual!”, but when asked what your actual position is, or how I’m misconstruing it, you refuse to say. It isn’t hard to figure out why (see #2). Don’t do that. State your true position, assuming it actually differs from my construal.
2) Be honest. Don’t claim that I’ve misconstrued you if I haven’t. It’s very easy, when someone points out an error of yours, to say “Oh, I didn’t make a mistake. You just misconstrued what I wrote.” Sometimes that’s true, but I’ve noticed that far too often you’ll claim misconstrual simply to avoid acknowledging an error that you’ve clearly made.
3) Don’t immediately get defensive if you think I’ve misconstrued you. Consider the possibility that you haven’t expressed yourself well, and that my interpretation is actually reasonable, given what you’ve written.
If you can honor those conditions, and not resent me merely for disagreeing with you and for pointing to what I think are your mistakes, I think we’ll be fine.
Neil:
Good. I’d like to discuss a couple of the views you brought up.
1. Your latest argument for the incommensurability of the SAM and YSM is that they are incommensurable in the Kuhnian sense. Could you explain why you say this, and how you think it supports the idea that distance (or length) does not “come from nature”?
2. Regarding my conception of truth and my views on reality, you wrote:
That claim seems bizarre to me. What is your reasoning? In that same comment, you wrote:
Does that still reflect your view?
Flint:
We’ve been over this, Flint. You have insisted that the nonexistence of reality is a live possibility. You’ve said that it’s reasonable to assert this. And not just reasonable, but preferable. You made that abundantly clear when you characterized those of us who believe in the existence of reality as “crippled minds” relying on a “cognitive crutch”. That’s pretty explicit, and there’s more where that came from.
To argue in good faith requires that you accept responsibility for the statements you make. You type them in, and you click ‘Post Comment’. That’s on you.
If you no longer stand by what you wrote, then say so. Retract your statement(s) and state your revised position.
I formulated my questions in response to your own statements of your position. They aren’t leading questions, and they don’t require you to adopt my point of view. They are questions about your own stated view.
Thus I asked:
If you no longer accept the nonexistence of reality as a reasonable, live option, and if you no longer regard folks as “cognitive cripples” who believe that reality exists, then say so. Retract your statements and revise your position.
I’ll then be able to decide whether (or how) to modify my questions based on your revised position. On the other hand, if you still think it’s preferable not to believe in the existence of reality, then my questions stand as written.
Who is Frank Fontaine and why mustn’t we emulate him?
Nope. You live in the USA, I imagine. If you behaved in real life as you do in these threads, someone would have shot you by now.
Alan:
Haha.
keiths,
That was actually a joke. Well done.
Alan:
Yes. “Haha” was my response to your joke. That’s how it works, at least when the joke is funny.
Flint:
Don’t fall into the map-vs-territory trap again. Reality is not a theory; it’s reality. There can be theories about reality and models of reality, but those theories and models are not themselves reality. This is crucial.The theory of gravity is not gravity — it’s a theory. The theory of evolution is not evolution — it’s a theory. Theories and models of reality are not reality — they are theories and models.
First, reality isn’t a theory, as explained above. And while the hypothesis that reality exists is a theory, and one that is well supported by the evidence, it is emphatically not required to explain everything known. Theories are not required to be comprehensive in that way. For example, theories of cosmology aren’t obligated to explain the evolution of butterflies, despite the fact that the evolution of butterflies takes place in the same universe that cosmology studies.
It’s the same with the hypothesis that reality exists. That hypothesis stands or falls based on any evidence that reality does or does not exist, but it is absolutely not required to explain every facet of reality. I can assert the existence of reality without explaining the reproductive cycle of nematodes in the jungles of Borneo.
Reality isn’t a theory, and as I pointed out in an earlier comment, you were quite explicit in treating the nonexistence of reality as a live, reasonable option, and one preferable to the pathetic “cognitive crutch” of the “crippled minds” who believe in the existence of reality. If you no longer believe that, excellent. Retract your statement and make your new position clear.
Not at all. Models needn’t be static, and they typically aren’t. However, in your specific scenario, where the model exists but reality doesn’t, there would never be a reason to update the model. Why? Because all observations would then be observations of the model, not of the nonexistent reality. Observations of the model would always be consistent with the model, and there would therefore never be a reason to update it.
But we do update our model, and that’s because our observations are observations of reality, not of our model. We correct our models based on information coming from reality. Reality exists, and we update our models to better conform to it.
Once again, reality isn’t a theory — it’s reality. I’m emphasizing this because it is so important.
Reality gives every indication of existing, which is why it was ridiculous of you to characterize those who believe in the existence of reality as cognitive cripples. Hopefully you see that now.
Any theories of reality are distinct from reality itself. Please confirm that you understand this. Also, just to confirm: do you accept that reality — the thing, not the theory — actually exists?
Reality is not a set of facts. There are facts about reality, but facts are merely facts. Reality is much more than that. For instance, reality includes chairs, and not merely facts about chairs.
This is promising. You seem to be affirming that reality exists, that chairs are real, and that I stubbed my toe on a chair. Please confirm.
keiths,
Again proving how easy it is to miss nuance in the written word.
What I should, perhaps, have written:
“That was actually a joke.”
Hmm.
“That was actually a joke”.
keiths,
Again with repeating the bleedin’ obvious.
You mean your preferred people do not need to be bludgeoned over the head even when they are wrong. But people you care less about can be bludgeoned over the head just fine as you look elsewhere.
I’ll just keep bludgeoning you. Bad admin.
Now, first off, remembering that the topic was something like measurement, then bringing up “reality” as if to answer it *is* an evasion of the topic. It is an evasion because whatever it is you consider reality or in whatever way you construe reality has no bearing on the measurement of any particular length. Measurement along with the problems of accuracy and precision and how to record the results are issues of physics and practical math, not of philosophy. So, first off, what you are saying here has no impact on the topic of measurement.
What one regards as reality is a different question, and an interesting one indeed. It is a question of philosophy. In philosophy, there is a basic distinction between reality and appearance. Reality and appearance are defined in contradistinction: Some things are “merely apparent” whereas other things are “(fundamentally) real”.
What can I conclude from your statements on reality? Your second paragraph reveals your philosophy of science, not philosophy proper, whereas in the first paragraph (which begins with philosophy proper) you say, “I regard “reality” as a rather abstract theory.” From this I can conclude that you mix up different areas of philosophy (for whatever reason) and you have not figured out philosophy proper. In philosophy proper, there is no such thing as “reality as an abstract theory”. In philosophy proper, there is reality in contradistinction with appearance, which also would give one an idea of a contradistinction of abstract versus concrete. The conclusion is that you do not have any of these concepts figured out.
Alan Fox,
That was also a joke.
Oh, we have, many times. Sadly, your response is to claim that there was no misconstrual at all (you seem unwilling to admit the slightest error) and you then embark on a justification of your misconstrual and a “well if you really meant Y, then you have changed your position, just admit it!” diatribe. After a while, the meta-discussion gets so boring that people give up on you. It isn’t a victory.
Flint:
Flint, later:
Jock:
Also, Jock, don’t forget to address this:
keiths:
Jock:
keiths:
You are referring to a comment that I made in 2016.
That’s 7 years ago. Yet you still don’t get that this was never intended to be taken literally.
DNA_Jock,
@ keiths. Read this.
I confess I’m fallible. If you spot an instance of bludgeoning that I haven’t noticed, please point it out.
keiths, quoting Neil:
Neil:
Yes. Hence my question:
Neil:
You meant what you wrote, which is why you tried to justify it:
It was your claim, supported by your (poor) reasoning. Take responsibility for what you wrote.
You made a similar claim in this thread:
Your meaning couldn’t be clearer. You are suggesting that my atheism clashes with my view of objective reality. It’s essentially the same claim you made in 2016.
I’m asking you whether you stand by those statements. If not, then say so. If you do, I’m interested in hearing your reasoning. The justification you offered in 2016 doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Is that still your reasoning?
I wish I had included something about the use of bold font in the diatribe. His next comment even includes one of his classic karenphrases.
keiths is correct that I enjoy proving him wrong, but I am selective about which errors I critique. The remainder of that page, especially newton’s and walto’s contributions, are comedy gold!
Jock:
Haha. From that thread:
Jock:
keiths:
Yes. We have a theory that there exists an underlying reality, independent of any limitations of perception. This theory holds that you are 100% entirely correct! And as I pointed out, like any good theory, it is falsifiable in principle. Of course, if the theory is flawless, there can be no falsification, but the principle doesn’t change. It’s like the difference between you always being right, and you believing that you are always right.
It’s not my fault that you do not know the difference between a theory and a fact. You can’t seem to grasp that a theory can be 100% accurate and complete and flawless, yet it remains a theory. Nobody seems able to get this through to you. I certainly can’t. Theories do not “graduate” into facts simply because they are correct.
Flint:
No, the theory that reality exists simply holds that reality exists. It makes no claims about whether chlorophyll is green, the pope shits in the woods, Mogadishu is in France, or I am right or wrong. It simply holds that reality exists.
I do know the difference between theory and fact, but if you think I don’t, that might be a clue as to where the confusion is coming from. Could you point to whatever I said that made you think that?
Theories are theories. I’ve never stated (or implied) otherwise. So again, that might be a clue as to where the confusion is coming from. What did I say that led you to your conclusion regarding my beliefs?
Yes, exactly so. The theory of reality is that reality exists.
What you said, repeatedly, and I quoted you from prior posts, was that “reality isn’t a theory.”
Now, here is where I think we’re not communicating. I think that we have a theory of reality. It holds that reality exists, that it’s “really there”, that it’s objective and independent of any limits on perception or conceptualization or anything else. THAT is what the theory of reality says. And I went so far is to give a couple of examples of how the theory could be falsified, or require modification.
Others have made the same point – that we might be living in a 3-dimensional illusion, as a projected shadow of the “real” higher-dimension reality. But such speculations are probably useless, because if our reality is an illusion, we can never know it. So far as we know, maybe so far as we CAN know, the theory that reality exists is entirely correct. All your attempted refutations do nothing more than underscore how compelling the theory is.
Flint:
Which is correct. We have a theory of thunderstorms, but that theory is not itself a thunderstorm. It’s a theory. We have a theory of combustion, but that theory is not itself an instance of combustion. It’s a theory. In general, a theory (or model) of X is not X. It’s a theory (or a model).
Ditto for maps and territories. The map is not the territory. A map of the United States isn’t itself the United States. It’s a map.
The relation is commutative, too. A theory is not a thunderstorm, which means that a thunderstorm is not a theory. It’s a thunderstorm. Reality is not a theory. It’s reality.
None of the above implies that theories are anything other than theories.
Flint:
That wouldn’t mean that reality doesn’t exist. It would simply mean that reality differs from how we perceive it.
Recall what I wrote about the hypothesis that we are living in a simulation:
And:
A reality that is quite different from how we envision it is still a reality.
Flint,
Have you somehow gotten the impression that if someone thinks that theory A is true, they are asserting that A could not possibly be false? Or that I am doing so? That isn’t the case, I can assure you.
My philosophy is simple. I think that if theory A is extremely well supported, and that competing theories B, C, D, etc., are not well supported or are contradicted by observation, that we should believe theory A. Doing so does not mean that we’ve ruled out the possibility that A is false. We believe that A is true, and we may believe it with a high degree of confidence, but we accept the possibility that we might be wrong.
Consider the theory that the sun appears to rise in the east due to the earth’s rotation. That theory is extremely well supported, and most people believe that it’s true. They are right to believe it. That’s the rational thing to do. Is it absolutely, 100.000… percent certain to be true? No, although it would be stunning news if it turned out to be false.
Question: Are the people who accept that theory “crippled minds” who are relying on a “cognitive crutch”?
Now consider theory Z, which is that reality exists. That theory is extremely well supported, and most people believe that it’s true. They are right to believe it. That’s the rational thing to do. Even you acknowledge its strength:
Is it absolutely, 100.000… percent certain to be true? No, although it would be stunning news if it turned out not to be.
Question: Are the people who believe that reality exists “crippled minds” who are relying on a “cognitive crutch”?
I say no. You say yes, and I think that’s ridiculous. Those people are perfectly rational, and they aren’t relying on a cognitive crutch. They’ve chosen to believe a well supported theory over a poorly supported one, which is exactly what they should do.
Impressive rejoinder. You just might qualify for the Planet Jock debate team.
Jock:
I doubt that. There are certain maximum standards for the PJDT, and I’m afraid I probably exceed them.
Jock, I’m still interested in your response to this.
I’ve been waiting for months for you and Flint to finally address my argument. If you’ve actually done so, as you have indicated, that would be fantastic. I have my doubts, but by all means, show us:
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position</Mr Vibrating>
Quite
Hence my conclusion that you lack rudimentary reading comprehension.
Your repeated assertions of personal incredulity are given the weight they deserve, Karen.
Sigh. It’s completely rational to accept the theory that reality exists. But a theory is not a fact. You continue to insist that reality is not a theory, and you support this by repeatedly emphasizing what an accurate theory it is! Once again, a theory is a proposed explanation of relevant observations. The theory that reality exists is supported by nearly all observations. There are, of course, things we can’t understand and things we don’t yet know about, but our theory says such things exist and have explanations. Nonetheless, reality is a theory and not a fact. The belief that reality is a fact is an unnecessary crutch. We regard our theory as conditionally correct. If the theory is wrong, it’s probable that the error is not knowable.
You have been shown ad nauseum, but you reject all counter arguments as being unacceptable. It’s like asking you if you have stopped beating your wife. “Yes” can’t be a good answer, since it implies that you used to beat your wife. “No” can’t be a good answer, since it implies that you still beat your wife. And any other answer at all is going to be rejected as an evasion, an attempt to change the subject, or a “refusal to discuss.” But this is the way you construct your framework – we cannot answer your questions without buying into the assumptions on which your questions are based. And nobody can get you to realize it.
Flint, Jock,
This is pitiful. I’m calling your bluff. Once again, here is the argument: Link, link
I’ve asked you guys probably a dozen times since January to address it. Not only have you refused, you haven’t even been brave enough to say that you’re refusing and to offer a reason why.
If you could refute it, you would have jumped on it long ago. Instead, it’s been eight months of silence. You are grown men. If you can’t refute it, be honest and say so. It will be embarrassing, yes, particularly since this has been going on for so long, but it won’t be the end of the world. You’ll survive. Your stonewalling is not arguing in good faith.
It’s just an argument on an internet blog. That’s all. It isn’t a threat to life and limb. Why are you afraid to engage it? Please try to overcome your fear so that we can advance the discussion.
Here’s the challenge I issued to Jock:
Again, here’s the argument: Link, link
Show me where you’ve addressed it — the actual argument — if you truly think you have (which I doubt). And if you’re unable to do that, how about addressing it now? It concerns an issue at the very core of our disagreements. Can you refute it? If so, quote the parts that you think are in error and explain why. If you can’t refute it, then say so. I promise, it won’t be fatal. You will live to see another day.
Flint:
Correct, and it’s completely irrational to disparage people as cognitive cripples for doing something that you now concede is completely rational. You goofed, Flint. The people who accept that theory, including me, are rational. We are not cognitive cripples. We are rational to believe that reality exists because that thesis is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It is a vastly superior theory when compared to the rival hypothesis that reality doesn’t exist.
Your claim about “crippled minds” leaning on a “cognitive crutch” isn’t defensible. It’s time to retract it.
Yes, because that statement is correct. Reality is not a theory. I’ve explained this in excruciating detail, and it looks like I’ll have to do so again. Once more unto the breach.
Please tell me which of the following numbered statements you disagree with, and why:
1. Thunderstorms are not theories. If you look up the word ‘thunderstorm’, you will not find a definition that reads ‘a theory’.
2. Theories are not thunderstorms. If you look up the word ‘theory’, you will not find a definition that reads ‘a thunderstorm’.
3. Theories are distinct from thunderstorms, and they have different properties. For example, a thunderstorm is a meteorological phenomenon, but a theory is not. A theory is a conceptual structure, but a thunderstorm is not.
4. A theory can be about thunderstorms, but that doesn’t make it a thunderstorm. It is still a theory and not a thunderstorm.
5. It is therefore correct, based on all of the above, to say that “a thunderstorm is not a theory.”
6. Similar statements can be made about maps and territories. Maps are not territories. Territories are not maps. Maps are distinct from territories, and they have distinct properties. A map can be a map of a territory, but that doesn’t make it a territory. It is still a map, not a territory.
7. Similar statements can also be made about a theory and reality. A theory is not reality. Reality is not a theory. They are distinct entities, having distinct properties. A theory can be about reality, but that doesn’t make it reality. It’s still a theory.
8. It is therefore correct to say “reality is not a theory.” Reality is something different.
9. Let A stand for “reality”, and B stand for “a theory of reality”. It is logically possible for A to exist when B doesn’t. It is logically possible for B to exist when A doesn’t. It is logically possible for both A and B to exist simultaneously. Could there be any more obvious demonstration that A is not B, and B is not A?
10. Based on the above, reality is obviously not a theory. It’s something else. To say that “reality is not a theory” is simply to state the obvious fact that they are distinct entities.
11. To say that “reality is not a theory” is emphatically not to claim that the existence of reality is an incontrovertible fact that could not possibly be false. I repeat: it is not such a claim.
12. The bottom line: reality is not a theory. It is a distinct entity. A theory is not reality. It is a distinct entity.
Please tell me that you finally understand this. If not, which numbered statements do you disagree with, and why?
That’s the argument that you are referring to?
It’s a goofy misuse of the word “inexact”. Given that you are using IPRs, what you actually mean here is “wrong”. Lose that equivocation and your “argument” disappears.
We addressed your “argument” on the ChatGPT thread, and you have offered nothing new since.
Jock,
Excellent! You actually quoted my argument and responded to it. This is what I’ve been asking you to do for eight months. Hopefully this will now enable us to make some progress on this question. Thank you.
You wrote:
You are smuggling in your conclusion, perhaps inadvertently. The argument asks whether exact real numbers (what you call “IPRs”) can be used to express inexact measurements. You are effectively assuming that they can’t, and then concluding that they can’t. That’s circular reasoning. Read on for an explanation.
The argument starts by asking what makes a measurement inexact without specifying whether the numbers are, or aren’t, exact. That’s as it should be. We don’t want to specify that prematurely. The answer is that a measurement is inexact as long as the measured value differs from the true value. And it does always differ. You and I agree that this is the case. It’s equivalent to stating that there is always a measurement error.
That’s the only requirement. Measured value has to be unequal to true value. If that condition is met, the measurement is inexact.
Now we ask, can that condition be met if the measured value and true value are both exact numbers? The answer is yes, of course. It is trivially possible for one exact number to be unequal to another exact number. After all, every number is not equal to every other number!
Spelling it out explicitly:
P1. A measurement is inexact if the measured value is unequal to the true value.
P2. One exact number can be unequal to another exact number.
Argument:
Suppose that the measured value and true value are both exact numbers. Can they be unequal? Yes, by P2. If so, is the measurement inexact? Yes, by P1.
Conclusion:
Exact numbers can be used to express inexact measurements.
It’s painfully obvious that this argument is sound, which is why you and Flint avoided it for eight months.
To avert the undesirable (to you) conclusion, you are effectively smuggling in a third premise:
P3. If the measured value and true value are IPRs (exact numbers), then the measurement doesn’t qualify as inexact.
But that’s the very question under dispute, so to use an implicit P3 is to reason circularly.
Rehearse. Filter. Advise.
You evidently lack rudimentary reading comprehension, as you continue equivocating.
Since I have never claimed that exact numbers cannot be used to express inexact measurements, you are arguing against a strawman.
My claims have always been that 1) it is a bad idea, and 2) no-one does it.
Cue “you’ve changed your mind!” meta-sidetrack.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.