At 08:43 AM 12/1/2014, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
Howard often refers to what "physicists" mean about this and that. This is highly relevant as concerns physics but maybe less so as concerns epistemology and ontology.
HP: I agree that most "this and thats" of physics are not highly relevant to philosophers' concerns. On the other hand, can you name any prominent philosophers who regard as irrelevant what physicists have learned about epistemology and ontology in the last century?
FS: In my experience there are different views about the relevance and character of these issues among physicists. Many physicists seem concerned with which things must exist if their models are true - and ontology is nothing more than that. But even if physicists did unanimously agree, we should not expect a vote among phycisists (nor any other select group) to be able to settle these issues.
HP: I agree. There are certainly different views because there are still great mysteries. Actually, a vote was taken 17 years ago over the <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf>interpretations of QM. This lack of consensus over interpretations remains just as great as ever.
I conclude from this lack of consensus on interpretation, but agreement on the predictive efficacy of QM formalism, that a theory does not need or even have a "true interpretation." That's what Hertz said: We do not know, nor have we any way of knowing if the theory corresponds to reality other than how well it predicts events.
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 .
