Dear Andrei,
> Nowdays in QI community is extremely popular Fuchsian (named to my
friend Chris Fuchs from Bell
> Lab) interpretation of QM: wave function is just information
representation of our believes about physical systems.
This sounds great to me.
> Quantum probabilities are subjective probabilities.
Is it necessary? Are all our beliefs considered to be subjective?
Is there a place for common beliefs?
(I think of shared beliefs within scientific communities.
In the same way as inter-subjective knowledge establishes itself as
"objective" knowledge within a community,
also common beliefs may arise as a result of shared knowledge.)
All the best,
Gordana
________________________________________________
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Senior Lecturer
M�lardalen University,
Department of Computer Science and Electronics
E-mail: gordana.dodig-crnkovic@mdh.se
http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/
Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
> Dear Arne,
> I agree with some your ideas and disagree with others.
>
>> In this ontological issue I fully support Andrei - and to my mind Ted
>> is mi=
>> staken because a separation between what is the contribution of an
>> eventual=
>> reality and the contribution of learned in theories of observation
>> is in p=
>> rinciple impossible. The reason for this is the (rarely recognised)
>> limited=
>> human capacity of perception, where evolution has favoured
>> adaptiveness be=
>> fore tha ability truthfulness of (re)presentation.
>>
> Andrei: I completely agree with this. So all our physical theories are
> just approximations, but I still think (as Einstein did) that there is
> real-reality beyond our observations (so Moon exists even when nobody
> looks at it).
>
> Yes our perceptions and feeling play the crucial role in that picture of
> reality that we created. But here created has the meaning that we just
> extracted a part of reality that could be represented by our
> perceptions. I agree that it is a very small part of reality, moreover,
> our representation is very special and it depends on models. We create
> MODELS, but these are models of real-reality.
>
> Information is information about reality. Nowdays in QI community is
> extremely popular Fuchsian (named to my friend Chris Fuchs from Bell
> Lab) interpretation of QM: wave function is just information
> representation of our believes about physical systems. Quantum
> probabilities are subjective probabilities. I think that such
> interpretation is the most close to yours.
>
> Such picture is not acceptable for me, two days ago we had the great
> battle during the round table of the conference \"Foundations of
> Probability and Physics-4\" in Vaxjo with Chris. But I need
objective
> probabilities and hence information. For the creator of teh frequency
> probability theory Richard von Mises, probabilities for coin trials were
> as real as e.g. the mass of this coin.
> All the best, Andrei
>
>
>> 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
>> considerin=
>> g 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
>> probabiliti=
>> es in the complex Hilbert space) giving predictions which are
>> supported by =
>> all existing experimental data. >>On the other hand, it is
still
>> unclear wh=
>> y 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
>> reali=
>> ty by itself, but about just our observations (of what?). All
>>
>>>> unsolved pr=
>>>>
>> oblems of quantum foundations are essentially amplified in the
>> quantum info=
>> rmation project. Problems which were of a purely philosophic interest
>> durin=
>> g one >>hundred years became technological and business
problems.=20
>> My claim is that the SOA cements the sand-fundament of the CI by
>> introducin=
>> g as \"reversed\" causality where the percepts and
observations are the
>> \"caus=
>> es\" of the reality-conception. Reality, which in turn, stands
for
>> just the =
>> recurrent stability of human perception (with no further (forbidden)
>> ontolo=
>> gical implications). See Wittgenstein: \"Whereof we cannot speak
we
>> must be =
>> silent\" To Andrei\'s question of what is the essence of
observation -
>> my rep=
>> ly is \"observation\" ie the feelings or complexity of
feels a that
>> normal hu=
>> man experience each second of his life. During the years I have
>> learnt that=
>> human \"feels\" are the consistent base of human
conceptualisation
>> even if t=
>> his 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 tr=
>> y - in spite of difficulty of approach).=20
>> Admittedly \"feels\" are strictly private phenomena but I
definitely
>> know it =
>> is quite possible to build a consistent science based on a strict
>> social co=
>> nsensus (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
>> differ=
>> ence if one mathematically treats signs of feels instead of states of
>> reali=
>> ty - but in the first case one get ride of the troublesome
\"reality\"
>> concep=
>> tion. In this view science has little to do with unveiling the truth
>> (of Go=
>> d\'s or Evolutions creation) but rather about predicting what feels
>> will com=
>> e up in my consciousness in future based on my collected experience.
>> No com=
>> mitent to some reality (beside my feels) are necessary in this view.
>> The co=
>> mmon 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
>> impossibl=
>> e as find an experimental proof or disproof on reality - simply
>> because bot=
>> h questions are undecidable. This has become the normal state of
>> affairs si=
>> nce 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 tha=
>> t matter) is superfluous and therefore unscientific. Also the
>> real/dream (o=
>> r real/abstract) distinction is misleading because it is simply
>> undecidable=
>> . If we call perception for real or dream matters little as long as
>> the con=
>> cept used serve as useful instrument of prediction ... which I think
>> also s=
>> omewhat captures the essence of the CI.=20
>> It is possible to indicate that a science can be erected upon the
>> idea of p=
>> rivate 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 rece=
>> ntly appeared in Kybernetes: The crisis of contemporary science, Vol:
>> 35 Is=
>> sue 3/4, 2006.=20
>>
>> Regards Arne Kjellman=20=20
>>
>> Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences
>> Stockholm University and KTH
>>
>> Home-page http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/=20
>> =20=20=20=20
>> ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C68B0C.8502F5F0
>> Content-Type: text/html;
>> charset=\"iso-8859-1\"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC \"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
Transitional//EN\">
>> <HTML><HEAD>
>> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D\"text/html;
>> charset=3Diso-8859-1\">
>> <META content=3D\"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180\"
name=3DGENERATOR>
>> <DEFANGED_style_0 </STYLE>
>> </HEAD>
>> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>Dear Collegues,</DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>Andrei wrote in reply to
Ted:</DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>>> >In the
orthodox copenhagen
>> interpretation,=
>> the main=20
>> problem is that<BR>it is strongly forbidden to consider
onthological
>> levels=
>> .=20
>> There is only<BR>one level -- level of observations. If you
want go
>> beyond =
>> this=20
>> layer,<BR>you go by definition beyond
science.<BR>>> =20
>> >Andrei<BR><BR>Ted\'s reply
was:<BR>>> No, my friend, I
>> go be=
>> yond=20
>> Copenhagen, for certain. But
modern<BR>>> thought on the
>> nature=
>> of=20
>> modeling (including theoretical
models)<BR>>> separates
>> out=20
>> representational issues, perhaps in layers,
from<BR>>>
>> natural=
>> =20
>> behavior. Science is about understanding, at least as I
>> see<BR>>>&nbs=
>> p;=20
>> it. </DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>In this ontological issue I fully support Andrei
- and
>> to my =
>> mind Ted is=20
>> mistaken because a separation between what is the contribution of an
>> eventu=
>> al=20
>> reality and the contribution of learned in theories
>> of observatio=
>> n is=20
>> in principle impossible. The reason for this is the (rarely
>> recognised) lim=
>> ited=20
>> human capacity of perception, where evolution has favoured
>> adaptiveness bef=
>> ore=20
>> tha ability truthfulness of (re)presentation.</DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>I have been workning with a Subject-Oriented
Approach
>> to huma=
>> n knowing=20
>> (SOA) for 10 years now and in this view the pieces fall
neatly
>> into pl=
>> ace.=20
>> The SOA take almost nothing for pre-given (granted) to human
>> epistemol=
>> ogy -=20
>> not even a physical space. Maybe these ideas are most easy captured
>> conside=
>> ring=20
>> Andrei\'s introduction to the on-going
>> FIS-discussion:</DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>>>We recall that quantum mechanics
by itself is a
>> huge =
>> building =20
>> having the sand-fundament =96the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation.
>> On one=
>> hand,=20
>> there was created >>the advanced mathematical formalism
>> (calculus of=
>> =20
>> probabilities in the complex Hilbert space) giving predictions which
>> are=20
>> supported by all existing experimental data. >>On the
other
>> hand, it =
>> is=20
>> still unclear why this formalism works so well and moreover it is not
>> clear=
>> what=20
>> it really predicts, because by the orthodox Copenhagen
>> >>interpretati=
>> on=20
>> (which is the conventional interpretation) quantum mechanics is not
>> about=
>> =20
>> physical reality by itself, but about just our observations (of
>> what?). All=
>> =20
>> >>unsolved problems of quantum foundations are
essentially
>> amplified =
>> in=20
>> the quantum information project. Problems which were of a purely
>> philosophi=
>> c=20
>> interest during one >>hundred years became
technological and
>> business=
>> =20
>> problems. </DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>My claim is that the SOA cements the
sand-fundament of
>> the CI=
>> by=20
>> introducing as \"reversed\" causality where
the percepts and
>> observation=
>> s are=20
>> the \"causes\" of the reality-conception. Reality, which in
turn,
>> stands for =
>> just=20
>> the recurrent stability of human perception (with no further
>> (forbidden)=20
>> ontological implications). See Wittgenstein: \"Whereof we cannot
speak
>> we mu=
>> st be=20
>> silent\" To Andrei\'s question of what is the essence of
observation -
>> my rep=
>> ly=20
>> is \"observation\" ie the feelings or complexity
of feels a that
>> normal=
>> =20
>> human experience each second of his life. During the years I
>> have lear=
>> nt=20
>> that human \"feels\" are the consistent base of human
conceptualisation
>> even =
>> if=20
>> this idea heavily upsets most classically trained minds.
>> (I simp=
>> ly=20
>> fear the objections that are very common - and
sometimes
>> are as =
>> cruel=20
>> as they are inconsiderate - but I urge the interested person to give
>> this=
>> =20
>> approach a try - in spite of difficulty of
>> approach). </DEFANGED_=
>> DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>Admittedly \"feels\" are strictly
private phenomena but I
>> defin=
>> itely know it=20
>> is quite possible to build a consistent science based on a strict
>> social=20
>> consensus (a new paradigm and unfortunately counter-intuitive one) -
>> and th=
>> is is=20
>> what we need as most of us know that today\'s science push
us
>> deeper an=
>> d=20
>> deeper in despair - in spite of its claimed success. It make
>> little=20
>> difference if one mathematically treats signs of feels instead of
>> states of=
>> =20
>> reality - but in the first case one get ride of the troublesome
>> \"reality\"=
>> =20
>> conception. In this view science has little to do with unveiling the
>> truth =
>> (of=20
>> God\'s or Evolutions creation) but rather about predicting what
>> feels w=
>> ill=20
>> come up in my consciousness in future based on my collected
>> experience. No=
>> =20
>> commitent to some reality (beside my feels) are necessary in this
>> view. The=
>> =20
>> common universe of science fades away giving place
to a
>> private=
>> =20
>> creation - a PRIVERSE - where each living being has its own priverse.
>> This=
>> =20
>> priverse will assist me in prediction - and the guide to the build-up
>> of su=
>> ch a=20
>> priverse is \"usefulness\" - which includes consensuality
since it is
>> very us=
>> eful=20
>> for a human being to belong to a group. This insight also drags the
>> celibra=
>> ted=20
>> truth conception into disreputation.</DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>Of course it is impossible to \"prove\"
such an approach
>> - as i=
>> t is=20
>> impossible as find an experimental proof or disproof on reality -
>> simply be=
>> cause=20
>> both questions are undecidable. This has become the normal state of
>> affairs=
>> =20
>> since Goedels incomleteteness theorems. However it is quite
easy
>> to sh=
>> ow=20
>> that the idea of a pre-given reality (or any other pre-given
>> phenomenon for=
>> that=20
>> matter) is superfluous and therefore unscientific. Also the
>> real/dream (or=
>> =20
>> real/abstract) distinction is misleading because it is simply
>> undecidable. =
>> If we=20
>> call perception for real or dream matters little as long as the
>> concept=20
>> used serve as useful instrument of prediction ... which I
think
>> also=
>> =20
>> somewhat captures the essence of the
CI. </DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>It is possible to indicate that a science can be
>> erected upon=
>> the idea of=20
>> private feels but I cannot got further into the SOA here -
>> and=20
>> unfortunately my homepage is bit of a mess. But to those interested a
>> paper=
>> of=20
>> mine recently appeared in Kybernetes: The crisis of contemporary
>> science, V=
>> ol:=20
>> 35 Issue 3/4, 2006. </DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV>Regards Arne Kjellman
</DEFANGED_DIV>
>> <DEFANGED_DIV><BR>Dept. of Computer and Systems
Sciences<BR>Stockholm
>> Unive=
>> rsity and=20
>> KTH<BR><BR>Home-page <A=20
>>
>>
> href=3D\"\">http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/</A> <BR> &n=
>
>>
bsp;</DEFANGED_DIV></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV></BODY></HTML>
>>
>> ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C68B0C.8502F5F0--
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> With Best Regards,
>
> Andrei Khrennikov
>
> Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
> Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
> University of Vaxjo, Sweden
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Jun 8 19:42:42 2006
