I need someone smarter than me to parse this

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To complement the above, the "paradox" mainly stems from the math.  The particle* has position, and has velocity.  That's not arbitrary.  We have to choose which one we measure; the math doesn't allow for both.

This doesn't mean the universe is weird -- it means our tools to understand it aren't always up to the task.

Wait, I didn't think it was a matter of tools (scientific equipment), I thought this was somehow the way information about quanta was fundementally organized.  That is, to the best of our understanding, the maths /always/ conceals one when the other is revealed.  Or, an increase in accuracy for one probability measurement MUST result in decreased accuracy of the other.  I even got a sense that we dont have reason to believe the maths is going to go about changing that - that it is fundamentally not up to task, that the universe /is/ weird.

I suppose this is where we reiterate "less mysterious more interesting"?

Not all tools are equipment. Language is a tool for describing things. Math is a language for describing physical behavior.

Not all math is for describing physical behaviour, right?  "Pure" maths is about entirely abstract/ideal concepts.  Still working on the difference between tools and equipment (maybe a similar distinction?)

Equipment is physical, language is conceptual. All equipment is a tool, not all tools are equipment.

[minuspace]

Cool.  Then equipment reminded me of the French "equi-page", which at least phonetically made me think "same-page". 

[Brotep]

The quantum bullshit (and other bullshit) in the piece aside, I do find it neat how contemporary neuropsychology and cognitive science is faced with similar problems to medieval metaphysics.

Universals were a hot-button issue back in the day: what makes stuff that is good, good? We think there's this monolithic thing, The Good. Do things that are good contain a piece of it? Or are they molded by it, as wax is displaced by a seal ring into a likeness? What is the relationship between the universal and the individual?

Nowadays we have questions like, what is the relationship between qualia (our experiences of the world) and unmediated reality?

Calling barstool here is spot on, though: if qualia did not relate to unmediated reality closely enough, we would not be able to survive.

This is not to say the experience of wetness has anything to do with what water actually is, only that the consistency of that experience in relation to the unmediated reality of what we recognize as water allows us to create an understanding of it, weave it into our frameworks of associations and meanings. Likewise, a fact need not capture the essence of what it describes--it is a useful relation.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Most of the article appears to be equivocations and empty platitudes wrapped up in a sham of the profound

[hooplala]

Most of the article appears to be equivocations and empty platitudes wrapped up in a sham of the profound