Colin writes

> ACCURACY
> Extent to which a measurement matches and international standard.
> 
> REPEATABILITY
> Extent to which a measurement matches its own prior measurement.
> 
> For example the SICK DME 200 laser distance measurement instrument
> has an accuracy of about 10mm over 150m but a repeatability of 0.7mm
> 
> Why does this matter?
> 
> Because _within_ the measurement system is simply does not
> matter what the accuracy is! As long as systematic errors are 
> repeatable, the systems behaviour will be repeatable...

Sounds reasonable.  And indeed, matches the *reliability* vs.
*validity* of statistical measurements and performance. Does
this distinction between accuracy and repeatability get the
same kind of press that reliability vs. validity does?

> So, for subjective experience: Yes it can be an illusion,
> but a systematically erroneous, relentlessly repeatable 
> illusion driven by measurement of the natural world where 
> its errors are not important - .ie. not mission fatal to the 
> observer. Experiential qualities, in their solipsistic 
> presentation, need only be repeatable (my red/attached to
> the linguistic token RED), not 'accurate' (internationally
> standardized RED #12398765).
> 
> This is equivalent to saying that the experience of HOT 
> and the actual hotness of reality (wobbly atoms) _do not 
> have to be intimately/directly related_!!! They can be
> completely different and as long as the experience is 
> consistently used the behaviour of the experiencer will
> be the same "OUCH".

Well, wait a minute.  The experience of HOT *does* have to
be intimately related: otherwise, the machines we are would
not have been built by evolution in this way. It serves an
extremely important function for our survival as animals.

> Haven't we all asked 'is my red the same as your read'?
> Haven't we all concluded that we'd never be able to
> ascertain the difference because it really does not
> matter?

No, only the philosophically inclined ever ask that. And
yes, they conclude (or should conclude) that it doesn't
matter and is actually a wrong question. It's analogously
bad to "What is it like to be a bat?" another question 
that only a philosopher would ask, and which just derails
thinking into unproductive channels IMO.

> ...we all point to the object and agree its red....
> repeatability.... meanwhile the actual physical reality
> of 'redness' is simply irrelevant and may not represent
> any real quality of the observed system at all...

That's *possible*, of course. Sometimes brains malfunction from
the viewpoint of evolution. It was, after all, "actual physical
reality of redness"

****WARNING WARNING WARNING PHILOSOPHICAL DANGER ALERT USE OF
COLOR IN PHILOSOPHY EXCEEDINGLY DANGEROUS****

okay, okay, It was, after all, properties of objects conveyed
by the wavelengths of photons they reflected that gave a survival
advantage to some species while other species (e.g. canines) found
that information to be irrelevant to survival.

> I really wish mathematicians and philosophers and theoreticians
> would get out and get dirty in the real world some times.....
> half of the damned wordfest would disappear immediately.

Hear! Hear!

> Grumpy today.... sorry.

You ain't seen 'nothin.  Wait until you are in your late fifties, pal.

Lee


Reply via email to