Dear Arne,
I agree with some your ideas and disagree with others.
In this ontological issue I fully support Andrei - and to my mind Ted
is mi=
staken because a separation between what is the contribution of an
eventual=
reality and the contribution of learned in theories of observation
is in p=
rinciple impossible. The reason for this is the (rarely recognised)
limited=
human capacity of perception, where evolution has favoured
adaptiveness be=
fore tha ability truthfulness of (re)presentation.
Andrei: I completely agree with this. So all our physical theories are
just approximations, but I still think (as Einstein did) that there is
real-reality beyond our observations (so Moon exists even when nobody
looks at it).
Yes our perceptions and feeling play the crucial role in that picture of
reality that we created. But here created has the meaning that we just
extracted a part of reality that could be represented by our
perceptions. I agree that it is a very small part of reality, moreover,
our representation is very special and it depends on models. We create
MODELS, but these are models of real-reality.
Information is information about reality. Nowdays in QI community is
extremely popular Fuchsian (named to my friend Chris Fuchs from Bell
Lab) interpretation of QM: wave function is just information
representation of our believes about physical systems. Quantum
probabilities are subjective probabilities. I think that such
interpretation is the most close to yours.
Such picture is not acceptable for me, two days ago we had the great
battle during the round table of the conference \"Foundations of
Probability and Physics-4\" in Vaxjo with Chris. But I need objective
probabilities and hence information. For the creator of teh frequency
probability theory Richard von Mises, probabilities for coin trials were
as real as e.g. the mass of this coin.
All the best, Andrei
I have been workning with a Subject-Oriented Approach to human
knowing (SOA=
) for 10 years now and in this view the pieces fall neatly into
place. The =
SOA take almost nothing for pre-given (granted) to human epistemology
- not=
even a physical space. Maybe these ideas are most easy captured
considerin=
g Andrei\'s introduction to the on-going FIS-discussion:
We recall that quantum mechanics by itself is a huge building
having the=
sand-fundament -the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. On one hand,
there=
was created >>the advanced mathematical formalism (calculus of
probabiliti=
es in the complex Hilbert space) giving predictions which are
supported by =
all existing experimental data. >>On the other hand, it is still
unclear wh=
y this formalism works so well and moreover it is not clear what it
really =
predicts, because by the orthodox Copenhagen >>interpretation (which
is the=
conventional interpretation) quantum mechanics is not about physical
reali=
ty by itself, but about just our observations (of what?). All
unsolved pr=
oblems of quantum foundations are essentially amplified in the
quantum info=
rmation project. Problems which were of a purely philosophic interest
durin=
g one >>hundred years became technological and business problems.=20
My claim is that the SOA cements the sand-fundament of the CI by
introducin=
g as \"reversed\" causality where the percepts and observations are the
\"caus=
es\" of the reality-conception. Reality, which in turn, stands for
just the =
recurrent stability of human perception (with no further (forbidden)
implications). See Wittgenstein: \"Whereof we cannot speak we
must be =
silent\" To Andrei\'s question of what is the essence of observation -
my rep=
ly is \"observation\" ie the feelings or complexity of feels a that
normal hu=
man experience each second of his life. During the years I have
learnt that=
human \"feels\" are the consistent base of human conceptualisation
even if t=
his idea heavily upsets most classically trained minds. (I simply
fear the=
objections that are very common - and sometimes are as cruel as
they are =
inconsiderate - but I urge the interested person to give this
approach a tr=
y - in spite of difficulty of approach).=20
Admittedly \"feels\" are strictly private phenomena but I definitely
know it =
is quite possible to build a consistent science based on a strict
social co=
nsensus (a new paradigm and unfortunately counter-intuitive one) -
and this=
is what we need as most of us know that today\'s science push us
deeper and=
deeper in despair - in spite of its claimed success. It make little
differ=
ence if one mathematically treats signs of feels instead of states of
reali=
ty - but in the first case one get ride of the troublesome \"reality\"
concep=
tion. In this view science has little to do with unveiling the truth
(of Go=
d\'s or Evolutions creation) but rather about predicting what feels
will com=
e up in my consciousness in future based on my collected experience.
No com=
mitent to some reality (beside my feels) are necessary in this view.
The co=
mmon universe of science fades away giving place to a private
creation - a =
PRIVERSE - where each living being has its own priverse. This
priverse will=
assist me in prediction - and the guide to the build-up of such a
priverse=
is \"usefulness\" - which includes consensuality since it is very
useful for=
a human being to belong to a group. This insight also drags the
celibrated=
truth conception into disreputation.
Of course it is impossible to \"prove\" such an approach - as it is
impossibl=
e as find an experimental proof or disproof on reality - simply
because bot=
h questions are undecidable. This has become the normal state of
affairs si=
nce Goedels incomleteteness theorems. However it is quite easy to
show that=
the idea of a pre-given reality (or any other pre-given phenomenon
for tha=
t matter) is superfluous and therefore unscientific. Also the
real/dream (o=
r real/abstract) distinction is misleading because it is simply
undecidable=
. If we call perception for real or dream matters little as long as
the con=
cept used serve as useful instrument of prediction ... which I think
also s=
omewhat captures the essence of the CI.=20
It is possible to indicate that a science can be erected upon the
idea of p=
rivate feels but I cannot got further into the SOA here - and
unfortunately=
my homepage is bit of a mess. But to those interested a paper of
mine rece=
ntly appeared in Kybernetes: The crisis of contemporary science, Vol:
35 Is=
sue 3/4, 2006.=20
Regards Arne Kjellman=20=20
Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences
Stockholm University and KTH
Home-page http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/=20
=20=20=20=20
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C68B0C.8502F5F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=\"iso-8859-1\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC \"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN\">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D\"text/html;
charset=3Diso-8859-1\">
<META content=3D\"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180\" name=3DGENERATOR>
<DEFANGED_style_0 </STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DEFANGED_DIV>Dear Collegues,</DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>Andrei wrote in reply to Ted:</DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>>> >In the orthodox copenhagen
interpretation,=
the main=20
problem is that<BR>it is strongly forbidden to consider onthological
levels=
.=20
There is only<BR>one level -- level of observations. If you want go
beyond =
this=20
layer,<BR>you go by definition beyond science.<BR>>> =20
>Andrei<BR><BR>Ted\'s reply was:<BR>>> No, my friend, I
go be=
yond=20
Copenhagen, for certain. But modern<BR>>> thought on the
nature=
of=20
modeling (including theoretical models)<BR>>> separates
out=20
representational issues, perhaps in layers, from<BR>>>
natural=
=20
behavior. Science is about understanding, at least as I
see<BR>>>&nbs=
p;=20
it. </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>In this ontological issue I fully support Andrei - and
to my =
mind Ted is=20
mistaken because a separation between what is the contribution of an
eventu=
al=20
reality and the contribution of learned in theories
of observatio=
n is=20
in principle impossible. The reason for this is the (rarely
recognised) lim=
ited=20
human capacity of perception, where evolution has favoured
adaptiveness bef=
ore=20
tha ability truthfulness of (re)presentation.</DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>I have been workning with a Subject-Oriented Approach
to huma=
n knowing=20
(SOA) for 10 years now and in this view the pieces fall neatly
into pl=
ace.=20
The SOA take almost nothing for pre-given (granted) to human
epistemol=
ogy -=20
not even a physical space. Maybe these ideas are most easy captured
conside=
ring=20
Andrei\'s introduction to the on-going
FIS-discussion:</DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>>>We recall that quantum mechanics by itself is a
huge =
building =20
having the sand-fundament =96the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation.
On
there was created >>the advanced mathematical formalism
(calculus of=
=20
probabilities in the complex Hilbert space) giving predictions which
are=20
supported by all existing experimental data. >>On the other
hand, it =
is=20
still unclear why this formalism works so well and moreover it is not
clear=
what=20
it really predicts, because by the orthodox Copenhagen
>>interpretati=
on=20
(which is the conventional interpretation) quantum mechanics is not
about=
=20
physical reality by itself, but about just our observations (of
what?). All=
=20
>>unsolved problems of quantum foundations are essentially
amplified =
in=20
the quantum information project. Problems which were of a purely
philosophi=
c=20
interest during one >>hundred years became technological and
business=
=20
problems. </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>My claim is that the SOA cements the sand-fundament of
the CI=
by=20
introducing as \"reversed\" causality where the percepts and
observation=
s are=20
the \"causes\" of the reality-conception. Reality, which in turn,
stands for =
""
the recurrent stability of human perception (with no further
(forbidden)=20
ontological implications). See Wittgenstein: \"Whereof we cannot speak
we mu=
st be=20
silent\" To Andrei\'s question of what is the essence of observation -
my rep=
ly=20
is \"observation\" ie the feelings or complexity of feels a that
normal=
=20
human experience each second of his life. During the years I
have lear=
nt=20
that human \"feels\" are the consistent base of human conceptualisation
even =
if=20
this idea heavily upsets most classically trained minds.
(I simp=
ly=20
fear the objections that are very common - and sometimes
are as =
cruel=20
as they are inconsiderate - but I urge the interested person to give
this=
=20
approach a try - in spite of difficulty of
approach). </DEFANGED_=
DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>Admittedly \"feels\" are strictly private phenomena but I
defin=
itely know it=20
is quite possible to build a consistent science based on a strict
social=20
consensus (a new paradigm and unfortunately counter-intuitive one) -
and th=
is is=20
what we need as most of us know that today\'s science push us
deeper an=
d=20
deeper in despair - in spite of its claimed success. It make
little=20
difference if one mathematically treats signs of feels instead of
states of=
=20
reality - but in the first case one get ride of the troublesome
\"reality\"=
=20
conception. In this view science has little to do with unveiling the
truth =
(of=20
God\'s or Evolutions creation) but rather about predicting what
feels w=
ill=20
come up in my consciousness in future based on my collected
experience. No=
=20
commitent to some reality (beside my feels) are necessary in this
view. The=
=20
common universe of science fades away giving place to a
private=
=20
creation - a PRIVERSE - where each living being has its own priverse.
This=
=20
priverse will assist me in prediction - and the guide to the build-up
of su=
ch a=20
priverse is \"usefulness\" - which includes consensuality since it is
very us=
eful=20
for a human being to belong to a group. This insight also drags the
celibra=
ted=20
truth conception into disreputation.</DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>Of course it is impossible to \"prove\" such an approach
- as i=
t is=20
impossible as find an experimental proof or disproof on reality -
simply be=
cause=20
both questions are undecidable. This has become the normal state of
affairs=
=20
since Goedels incomleteteness theorems. However it is quite easy
to sh=
ow=20
that the idea of a pre-given reality (or any other pre-given
phenomenon for=
""
matter) is superfluous and therefore unscientific. Also the
real/dream (or=
=20
real/abstract) distinction is misleading because it is simply
undecidable. =
If we=20
call perception for real or dream matters little as long as the
concept=20
used serve as useful instrument of prediction ... which I think
also=
=20
somewhat captures the essence of the CI. </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>It is possible to indicate that a science can be
erected upon=
the idea of=20
private feels but I cannot got further into the SOA here -
and=20
unfortunately my homepage is bit of a mess. But to those interested a
paper=
of=20
mine recently appeared in Kybernetes: The crisis of contemporary
science, V=
ol:=20
35 Issue 3/4, 2006. </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV>Regards Arne Kjellman </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><BR>Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences<BR>Stockholm
Unive=
rsity and=20
KTH<BR><BR>Home-page <A=20
href="" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/">http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/</A> <BR> &n=
bsp;</DEFANGED_DIV></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C68B0C.8502F5F0--
With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
