At 03:51 PM 11/6/2014, Frederik wrote:
Dear Howard, list This is where our ways part.
HP: I'm not sure why. My 25 words was just trying to sound like a nominalist. It is not my view, as the other 700 words tried to explain.
Suppose I agree to be a realist about iron, baking pies, round objects, etc., but prefer a nominalistic view of Schrödinger's wavefunction. That is, I assume Ockham's parsimonious attitude that the wavefunction is just the minimum subjective degrees of belief I need to predict the probability of an event. (This is sometimes called <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism>Quantum <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism>Bayesianism.)
Do our ways still part? Howard
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
