Dear Andrei and colleagues,
I think we together have found out that the realist's and anti-realist's systems are both plain believe systems. If you plead for either of them you are bound to embrace realism or anti-realism by personal belief since science cannot in principle device an experimental procedure to come to such a decision in that matter. In that respect it sounds that also this very controversy is undecidable - but not so. What we have missed evidently is to emphasize that a mature science cannot house answers to questions that are undecidable without degenerating to a framework of plain speculations. Since the realist/antirealist controversy is undecidable the very question "Is reality real?" unfortunately juxtaposes to another famous question "Is there a God?" and both must by necessity be answered by reference to subjective belief - even if consensual (i.e., that the majority believes in a real reality or a God). A mature science, however, must be able to forcefully reject undecidable questions - but today's science does not! This very point has passed almost unnoticed. Most literature on philosophy is lousy with questions that are undecidable - however this does not seem to prevent the author to present answers - on the contrary - they generally supply answers en masse. However in this situation any answer is as bad a candidate as another - since the mistake is to try to provide an answer to an undecidable question.
This has little to do with philosophy. The problem lies in the fundamental assumptions underlying science. Since the real/unreal question is undecidable a real/unreal distinction is strictly forbidden and therefore also the ordinary outside/inside distinction as made by the cognitive sciences. One of the fundamental definitions of classical science is that there is a real (and furthermore unary) world that is well separated from human knowledge - and here the mentioned forbidden distinction deceitfully appears. If we accept this misleading situation we can discuss the real/illusory question for centuries (as mankind already have done) but no answer will come out because there simply is none. To my mind the now almost closed FIS discussion was just another iteration of this fruitless discourse - unfortunately.
A physicist would never dare to use an instrument he doesn't understand - however the very same physicist can without precautions make use of his perceptual instrument without even a rudimentary understanding of its function. Isn't it strange? The clue to the present confused situation of science is to ask how it is possible for an observer to make a model of any phenomenon - if he has not a model of its own mind at his disposal, exactly in the same way we require a model of an instrument to understand its function. The realist's dilemma was an attempt to highlight this very situation, but unfortunately nobody tried an answer or even challenged the dilemma as formulated. An observer lacking of a model of its own perception cannot model anything else but its own experience - exactly in the same way a physicist using an unknown instrument cannot make sound decisions. This very conclusion disqualifies the scientific observer to make certain inference - and also to use the celebrated experimental methodology as a crisp decision tool. In this situation we must resort to human consensus and a science based on social constructs.
When the real/unreal distinction is forbidden also the real/mental distinction is forbidden and useless as well, as R. Rorty clearly points out in his book The Mirror of Nature. However the problem here is not to decide as to whether the world is real or not - what is required is to understand that this very question is undecidable by experimental means and should not be asked at all for that reason. This is a point of view I have been arguing for - evidently in vain. This finding only invalidate experiment as a decision tool - and what is left then is to make a personal decision on that matter (formulate a belief). This is also science - but not classical science based on the outcome of physical experiments but rather a science based on human consensus.
Returning to the fundaments of science we can of course ad hoc define two different domains; one real and another mental and then keep yourself busy the whole life debating this question - and this debate has been on the agenda since the dawn of science. No surprise since it is undecidable within the classical framework. This is why science must abort undecidable questions from its discourse. Not only the real/unreal question - but a row of other questions like e.g.: "What is matter?" By the way what kind of an answer do we expect? The real/unreal controversy (not the question) is solved when we start evaluate what sort of questions we are allowed to pose to the models we make use of in science. In future though we cannot go on pretending we are in the possession of answers of questions that are undecidable in principle. When doing so we act like priest pretending to have access to God's point of view.
You have done a great job Andrei and I consider you a very brave scientist by the very way you straightforwardly in detail present your ideas - but sometimes I cannot make sense of your saying. You say we cannot <<understand>> reality and still you claim it to be "real" ???? You say "information is not less real than mass or charge" Not a misleading statement - but it lacks of useful meaning. It just begs the question: "What is real?" - indeed a forbidden question since there is no answer.
Neither I can I agree with you and Søren Brier that the main problem is that in modern science information is always reduced to probability. I think the opposite is the problem; Namely that scientists once came to believe that certain immutable answers are possible. There are no such answers - they are all more or less probable - and therefore reduces to probability calculus.
Evidently not even you are satisfied with your point of view since you finally conclude" there should be done something cardinally new..."
well - since scientific dualism evidently is misleading I have argued for scientific monism in the guise of the Subject-Oriented Approach to Knowing . this is something cardinally new...
I am afraid I was neither clear nor very successful in this deed.. but I'll find comfort in the saying that people sometimes do not even recognise the path towards home when they see it.
Thank you for staging these stimulating discussions - you really have done a great job Arne Arne Kjellman PhD Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences Stockholm University and KTH Forum 100 S-164 40 Kista SWEDEN For direct correspondence use this address: Skrangstabodarna 140 S-852 96 Sundsvall SWEDEN phone +46-60 36430 Home-page http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/ _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
