Dear Arne,
You wrote:
> You are dicussing the possibility to classify fields and information
> as REAL - and \"existing\" on an equal level as of REALITY - as
opposed to> something else...experience I guess.
> Does this means you both both think it is consistently possible to
> classifying phenomena of science into the dichomoty REAL/UNREAL (or
> eventually MATERIAL/UNMATERIAL)?
In any event I speak not about the dichomoty MATERIAL/UNMATERIAL.
The main point of my Email was that the modern physics shows that the
traditiotal distinction MATERIAL/UNMATERIAL is not so sharp as was
believed. I again advertise reality as reality of fields (classical or
quantum). Fields are not more localized in the space. So I would not
like to consider fields as material structures, but as information
structures. D. Bohm and B. Hiley in their book Undivided Universe had a
similar viewpoint. They interpreted teh pilot wave in the Bohmian
mechanics as a purely information field. I did teh same in my book and
congnition was described in terms of information fields.
The dichomoty REAL/UNREAL -- yes!
You wrote:
> I mean do you think is it possible to come to such a distinction of
> phenomena on grounds of an obsevation science??
> In in this case on what criteria could such a distinction possibly be
> uphold?> Do you expect a possible experimental \"proof\"?
Like the way
> physicists
> strive for an experiemental \"proof\" of Bell\'s inequality for
> instance?
No I do not expect a purely experimental proof. There should be created
a model. Then we should test if it matches the experimental data.
But we can never prove that a model is correct through the experimental
data (Poper\'s thesis), but we can reject our model if it does not
match data.
> Or can such a \"proof\" only be established by a social
convention -
> consensus? In this case a matter of consesual belief. And how do we
> then
> proceed from this very point?
This is a problem. Yes, modern science works in such a way. But there
is reality which is independent of consesual belief. Soon or later this
reality will go into teh contradiction with a social agreement.
But as we have seen it could take hundreds and even thousands of years.
> The SOA\'s line of arguing is that real/unreal distinction can only be
>
> grounded on social convention - i.e., a definition that is generally
>
> accepted but cannot be (ap)proved in a science based on experimental
> evidence. (The realist\'s dilemma is an attempt to show that human\'s
> capacity
> of perception is the cause that make this outcome a necessity.)
> However a decision in consensus can only be achieved in the case each
>
> individual participating in this act of consesual decision has made
> up his
> mind, ie made a private decision in the matter under consideration.
> This is
> why science has to take off form the individual subject\'s point of
> view -
> the subject-oriented approach (SOA) - and accordingly make a strict
> use of
> the first person\'s view.
Yes, modern science is SOA, I agree. But it does not imply that
everybody should accept such a social agreement. I organized 9 large
internatonal conferences on quantum foundations, about 600 people. Many
of them have doubts in the conventional interpretation of QM, in spite
of the fact that we all formally accept it.
All the best, Andrei
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon Jul 17 12:09:09 2006
