[Fis] QBism

[Stanley N Salthe]

Here I advance a viewpoint for Hans.  There has been an ongoing critique of
the very scientific viewpoint that you eschew -- namely the notion that
there is an objective world out there that we might discover.  This attack
on science as it has been is known as social constructivism, and it is
sorely hated by most scientists, (Social constructivism has other meanings
in other fields, like architecture, but I refer only to its meaning
bis-a-vis science.) It proposes that observations are taken from local
perspectives -- as you do -- but it focuses ,not upon individual
researchers, as you do -- but rather upon the society from within which the
observations are made. Thus, modern science is taken to be an aspect, or
arm, of the Global Capitalist Growth Economy, which pays for the scientific
tools and work.  Hence, scientists are not viewed as discovering things,
but as constructing them, using the tools provided by society.  So, how do
you relate QBism to social constructivism?  Would we be justified in
viewing QBism the latest venture of constructivism?


STAN
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Social constructivism

[Hans von Baeyer]

Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of
[social] constructivism?

WOW, I sure hope not!  While it is true that there are fads in science, and
that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the society
that funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying
methodology distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from
scientific ones.  Social constructions use arguments that play no role in
any account of the scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences
(as opposed to the Social Sciences).

Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists,
Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture;
Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists.

QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum mechanics.
 It simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex, abstract encoding
of the experiences of generations of scientists interacting with atomic
systems. It disenfranchises a physicist from knowing what an electron spin,
for example, REALLY is, while celebrating her ability to predict correctly,
albeit probabilistically, what to expect in the next experiment. She and
her predecessors have created an abstract model, and validated it by appeal
to experiments, without appeal to any of the other considerations listed
above.

In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as a
metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly
differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that "explains"
it is very complicated and highly abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It
certainly does not exist when nobody is looking.  It is, in the end, a
personal experience.  For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my
understanding of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look
for and discover details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to
say I know what YOUR experience of it is.  Maybe you are thinking of Iris
or Noah, and feeling awe or curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently)
immense size and variable brightness.

QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an
ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose
essences we cannot capture.  The QBist says: I don't know what the world
is.  All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as
they are illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people,
past and present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the
succinct language of mathematics.

Hans
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Social constructivism

[Lars-Göran Johansson]

In what sense does Qbism, as described below, differ from the Copenhagen 
Interpretation? I fail to see any substantial difference.
And to my knowledge, none of the interpretations discussed after CI talks about 
any essences. And I think most (except deBroglie-Bohm interpretation) agree in 
rejecting value determinism, i.e. the doctrine that all observables have 
definite values at all times, whether measured or not.
A propose spin, it seems plausible to conclude that spin is a relational 
property, a relation between the particle and an external magnetic field.   We 
may recognize that, once we appreciate  that spin-up and spin-down states 
always tacitly refer to an external given direction in space. And this is not a 
mere spatial direction, it must have a physical realization as a field 
direction.
Lars-Göran Johansson


8 jan 2014 kl. 00:52 skrev Hans von Baeyer 
mailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com>>:

Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of 
[social] constructivism?

WOW, I sure hope not!  While it is true that there are fads in science, and 
that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the society that 
funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying methodology 
distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from scientific ones.  
Social constructions use arguments that play no role in any account of the 
scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences (as opposed to the 
Social Sciences).

Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists, 
Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture; 
Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists.

QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum mechanics.  It 
simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex, abstract encoding of the 
experiences of generations of scientists interacting with atomic systems. It 
disenfranchises a physicist from knowing what an electron spin, for example, 
REALLY is, while celebrating her ability to predict correctly, albeit 
probabilistically, what to expect in the next experiment. She and her 
predecessors have created an abstract model, and validated it by appeal to 
experiments, without appeal to any of the other considerations listed above.

In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as a 
metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly 
differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that "explains" it 
is very complicated and highly abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It certainly 
does not exist when nobody is looking.  It is, in the end, a personal 
experience.  For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my understanding 
of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look for and discover 
details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to say I know what YOUR 
experience of it is.  Maybe you are thinking of Iris or Noah, and feeling awe 
or curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently) immense size and variable 
brightness.

QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an 
ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose 
essences we cannot capture.  The QBist says: I don't know what the world is.  
All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as they are 
illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people, past and 
present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the succinct 
language of mathematics.

Hans
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

--
Lars-Göran Johansson
professor
filosofiska institutionen
Uppsala Universitet
0701-679178



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914)

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear List,

My lecture on the 15th involves an uncommon subject (for me), God. What
role does God play in the construction of computing machinery and why is
the subject of my talk at all relevant today?

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914)
His life, contributions to logic, and the "American Enlightenment."
http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/

The lecture will be recorded, I'll let you know when it is available.

Regards,
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Social constructivism

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear colleagues,

 

Perhaps, the "rainbow" argument is opening a window to constructivism. The
definitions of poverty or IQ, for example, guide us in our perceptions of
reality and the possibilities of measurement. One can measure IQ because the
concept is discursively constructed and codified. The nature of the
codification process may be different among the sciences (e.g., between
social and natural sciences), but not the need to construct discursively and
to codify scholarly communication in processes of validation.

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

 

 

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Hans von Baeyer
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 12:52 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Social constructivism

 

Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of
[social] constructivism? 

 

WOW, I sure hope not!  While it is true that there are fads in science, and
that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the society
that funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying
methodology distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from
scientific ones.  Social constructions use arguments that play no role in
any account of the scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences
(as opposed to the Social Sciences). 

 

Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists,
Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture;
Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists. 

 

QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum mechanics.
It simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex, abstract encoding
of the experiences of generations of scientists interacting with atomic
systems. It disenfranchises a physicist from knowing what an electron spin,
for example, REALLY is, while celebrating her ability to predict correctly,
albeit probabilistically, what to expect in the next experiment. She and her
predecessors have created an abstract model, and validated it by appeal to
experiments, without appeal to any of the other considerations listed above.


 

In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as a
metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly
differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that "explains"
it is very complicated and highly abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It
certainly does not exist when nobody is looking.  It is, in the end, a
personal experience.  For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my
understanding of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look
for and discover details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to say
I know what YOUR experience of it is.  Maybe you are thinking of Iris or
Noah, and feeling awe or curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently)
immense size and variable brightness.

 

QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an
ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose
essences we cannot capture.  The QBist says: I don't know what the world is.
All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as they
are illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people, past
and present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the
succinct language of mathematics. 

 

Hans 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis