[Fis] Reply to Ted Goranson: levels of description

[Fis] Reply to Ted Goranson: levels of description

From: Andrei Khrennikov <[email protected]>
Date: Wed 07 Jun 2006 - 14:20:15 CEST

              Dear collegues,
This is a part of my discussion with Ted Goranson. In the previous Email
to the FIS- list Ted Goranson wrote:
>> >> Any number of such ontological layers are
>> >> possible and I suppose as system scale increases
>> >> (physical, chemical, biological and so on...) new
>> >> ones are added, possibly with constant semantic
>> >> distance.
>> >> The point here is as stated at the beginning,
>> >> that ontological precedence is key in
>> >> unwrapping how QM and information inform each
>> >> other, if I can use such a reflexive notion.

My reply to him:
>> >In the orthodox copenhagen interpretation, the main problem is that
it is strongly forbidden to consider onthological levels. There is only
one level -- level of observations. If you want go beyond this layer,
you go by definition beyond science.
>> >Andrei

His reply to me:
>> No, my friend, I go beyond Copenhagen, for certain. But modern
>> thought on the nature of modeling (including theoretical models)
>> separates out representational issues, perhaps in layers, from
>> natural behavior. Science is about understanding, at least as I see
>> it. My letter was one which addresses the understanding of
>> understanding where QM seems inadequate and FIS interests (at least
>> as the group was originally defined) are centered.

My comment:
>Here I agree QM with the Copenhagen interpreation is really #end of the
>road of physics (see Karl Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in
Physics.)

His reply to me (continuation):
>> But the online discussion as it is developing seems not to worry too
>> deeply about the nature of information, so perhaps I leave the
letter as a marker for a future discussion.

My comment:
Yes, >> deeply about the nature of information>>
This is the crucial point. But as I know there are only two ways to
define information rigorously, classical Shannon information, and
quantum von Neumann information. In fact, all my discussion was about
the possibility (if it would be possible at all) to reduce the second
one to the first one.

I understood that very often people speak about information in some
heuristic sense, but we are not able to proceed rigorously with a
mathematical definition of information. And I know only definitions
which are based on different kinds of entropy and hence probability.

Andrei

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Jun 7 14:20:34 2006


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Wed 07 Jun 2006 - 14:20:35 CEST