Colin writes

> Extent to which a measurement matches and international standard.
> 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"


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.


Reply via email to