[Fis] QI

[Fis] QI

From: Arne Kjellman <[email protected]>
Date: Thu 08 Jun 2006 - 15:02:11 CEST

Dear Collegues,

Andrei wrote in reply to Ted:
>> >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

Ted's reply was:
>> 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.

In this ontological issue I fully support Andrei - and to my mind Ted is mistaken because a separation between what is the contribution of an eventual reality and the contribution of learned in theories of observation is in principle impossible. The reason for this is the (rarely recognised) limited human capacity of perception, where evolution has favoured adaptiveness before tha ability truthfulness of (re)presentation.
I have been workning with a Subject-Oriented Approach to human knowing (SOA) for 10 years now and in this view the pieces fall neatly into place. The SOA take almost nothing for pre-given (granted) to human epistemology - not even a physical space. Maybe these ideas are most easy captured considering Andrei's introduction to the on-going FIS-discussion:
>>We recall that quantum mechanics by itself is a huge building having the sand-fundament -the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. On one hand, there was created >>the advanced mathematical formalism (calculus of probabilities in the complex Hilbert space) giving predictions which are supported by all existing experimental data. >>On the other hand, it is still unclear why this formalism works so well and moreover it is not clear what it really predicts, because by the orthodox Copenhagen >>interpretation (which is the conventional interpretation) quantum mechanics is not about physical reality by itself, but about just our observations (of what?). All >>unsolved problems of quantum foundations are essentially amplified in the quantum information project. Problems which were of a purely philosophic interest during one >>hundred years became technological and business problems.
My claim is that the SOA cements the sand-fundament of the CI by introducing as "reversed" causality where the percepts and observations are the "causes" of the reality-conception. Reality, which in turn, stands for just the recurrent stability of human perception (with no further (forbidden) ontological implications). See Wittgenstein: "Whereof we cannot speak we must be silent" To Andrei's question of what is the essence of observation - my reply is "observation" ie the feelings or complexity of feels a that normal human experience each second of his life. During the years I have learnt that human "feels" are the consistent base of human conceptualisation even if this idea heavily upsets most classically trained minds. (I simply fear the objections that are very common - and sometimes are as cruel as they are inconsiderate - but I urge the interested person to give this approach a try - in spite of difficulty of approach).
Admittedly "feels" are strictly private phenomena but I definitely know it is quite possible to build a consistent science based on a strict social consensus (a new paradigm and unfortunately counter-intuitive one) - and this is what we need as most of us know that today's science push us deeper and deeper in despair - in spite of its claimed success. It make little difference if one mathematically treats signs of feels instead of states of reality - but in the first case one get ride of the troublesome "reality" conception. In this view science has little to do with unveiling the truth (of God's or Evolutions creation) but rather about predicting what feels will come up in my consciousness in future based on my collected experience. No commitent to some reality (beside my feels) are necessary in this view. The common universe of science fades away giving place to a private creation - a PRIVERSE - where each living being has its own priverse. This priverse will assist me in prediction - and the guide to the build-up of such a priverse is "usefulness" - which includes consensuality since it is very useful for a human being to belong to a group. This insight also drags the celibrated truth conception into disreputation.
Of course it is impossible to "prove" such an approach - as it is impossible as find an experimental proof or disproof on reality - simply because both questions are undecidable. This has become the normal state of affairs since Goedels incomleteteness theorems. However it is quite easy to show that the idea of a pre-given reality (or any other pre-given phenomenon for that matter) is superfluous and therefore unscientific. Also the real/dream (or real/abstract) distinction is misleading because it is simply undecidable. If we call perception for real or dream matters little as long as the concept used serve as useful instrument of prediction ... which I think also somewhat captures the essence of the CI.
It is possible to indicate that a science can be erected upon the idea of private feels but I cannot got further into the SOA here - and unfortunately my homepage is bit of a mess. But to those interested a paper of mine recently appeared in Kybernetes: The crisis of contemporary science, Vol: 35 Issue 3/4, 2006.

Regards Arne Kjellman

Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences
Stockholm University and KTH

Home-page http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/
    

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Jun 8 15:04:34 2006


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Thu 08 Jun 2006 - 15:04:36 CEST