Re: [Fis] : Reality of Information World?!!!Re: [Fis] : Reality of Information World?!!!
From: Arne Kjellman <[email protected]>
Date: Fri 21 Jul 2006 - 11:40:02 CEST
Dear FIS-ers and Gordana,
I think this conversation is of interest to all of us
The stake at issue, I think, is as to whether information society (IS) tacitly should accept the
realist's dualist definition of a unary universe of observer-independent access to everyone -
including the realist's "bucket model" of knowledge acquisition, where the signal acts as
an information carrier between a presumed real "reality" and the unreal mind of the
observer. The IS must not be necessarily be locked in by the traditional realist view of physics -
since we very much operate on an abstract level - and therefore I think the time is ripe to pave a
more useful way around today's difficulties faced by traditional science. The other alternative open
to an IS-community, more appealing in my view, is the monist one, i.e., to consider a universe
(rather PRIVERSE since it turns out to be personal) where mind and reality is considered as a whole
where information is CREATED (for the sake of communication) in his mind/actuality and afterwards
explicated in models. Here the mathematical model is one available - logic and language another
among several others often disciplinary specific. In that view the human mind impression is nothing
else but a model - i.e., the body's way of reacting to its environment.
I think this is the main reason for this persistent dualist/monist battle taking place on this
IS-list.
In reply to your mail (below) Gordana I would say:
I hope you see the absurd situation you place yourself in when you try to use a row of subjective
statements and opinions in attempts to defeat subjectivity - you then virtually cut off the branch
you are sitting on. To discuss as to whether it is useful or not to use the term "real" as
a category is one thing - but to defend realism by the use of subjective arguments is plain
self-contradiction. However this is a problem realists very seldom like to consider.
Then it could seem unfair that I, since I pleads for the SOA, can use subjective arguments without
involving in self-contradiction - but you have better to see this as principal limitation; Namely
the fact that a human being can never be anything else but subjective. The fact that we can gather
together in groups to present beliefs unfortunately do not make us less subjective. ( I prefer the
term "subject-oriented" because the term subjective has become a word of abuse in
classical science.)
You try to defend scientific realism, i.e., the dualist idea that science must operate with two
domains, one "real" and another "unreal" (or mental) moreover claiming that
"reality" is accessible and real. But the problem is, as I claim, that this question is
undecidable - and this is a problematics that should be very familiar to a computer scientist.
In defending relism you also defend scientific objectivity - which is harder to define since it has
become deeply muddled by all obscure attempts to defend it - but we can at least see it as the
opposite of subjectivity. The line of demarcation is somewhat harder to draw - but from an
observational point of view one can say that the first person perspective (insider's view) is the
only allowable in the SOA when the third person perspective (outsider's view) is prescribed by the
object-oriented approach (OOA). However subjectivity has become a word of abuse in the framework of
OOA because of its emphasis on experimentation. Why? Can you have a feeling for the wish for power?
Curiously enough all realists accept Einstein's way of subjective reasoning when he e.g. sits on
quanta or uses elevators travelling at the speed of light - surprisingly enough even he himself.
OOA was developed during the scientific revolution is defined by its experimental methodology (thus
involving observation) and succeeding modelling (for the sake of communication). Since then the
physical experiment has become the hallmark of science - if you cannot present an experimental
"proof" you are non-scientific - i.e., you resort to plain belief.
This is the experimental way of deciding . that is, if you experimentally can show something this
experiment can be used to convince other people that you claim is correct - or at least useful.
However the test of usefulness is prediction - not consent.
So now when you and Andrei admit you are unable to present a proof of the "realness" of
reality you are in trouble - because physics has no means to present such a proof (Goedel's 2nd see
below). Then you are directed make a decision in this matter by pure belief - and in this deed you
are subjective - which Andrei also admits - but this is also to say that you are non-objective.
But there is a lot of questions that are undecidable by experiment - in fact all questions are
dependent on the consent of ostentation (which is the basis of language) - and in this situation we
must also rely on consensus. However consensus is a subjective group decision. Therefore you cannot
rely on consensus to dismiss subjectivity - without serious self-contradiction. On the other hand a
subjectivist can dismiss objectivity without running into self-contradiction because a consensual
decision is a legal one in his framework.
So why is the question of real so important? Well, if the real/unreal dichotomy is experimentally
undecidable (and I can see a consensus here) then the realist's dualist way of operating with two
different domains is possibly bewildering and misleading - and definitely a matter of plain belief.
In fact I cannot see why the science of physics should uphold an undecidable distinction - then we
are just once more trying to prove the existence of God. As well doing non-science to my view.
So Gornada if you claim your statements are non-subjective, i.e., objective I need better arguments
indeed - as a matter of fact I do not think you can even reach consensus about most of your
statements below. Andrei, on the other hand is better off, since he has a consensual back-up when
claiming the world is "real" - by, as already said, the fact this is a subjective group
decision, and then he can at least redefine a "subjective group decision" into an
"objective decision" and plead for the belief of majority. However this do not make his
(or his groups) point of view True - because he is this deed unable to find a truth template. His
group's point of view might not even be useful in the long run. Today's conceptual difficulties of
science indicates that we are facing this is very situation.
One way to convince me Gordana is to solve the "realist's dilemma" as earlier presented by
me - and you should, as a computer scientist, really be in the position to assimilate this dilemma.
Below some of my comment marked AAAA on your recent mail:
>I think it can be a new very productive paradigm now when one can afford to
treat those processes individually so and not anonymize them making simplifying >assumption
that they in average are the same. We might now start to be interested in what they do when they
keep individual behaviors and what is even more >important individual strategies - that might
be especially relevant in biological systems.
AAAA: What paradigm? To treat the "real" reality as a set of individual "real"
agents - and considering a stone as a "real" agent as well? I cannot see how you can
escape the problem of the human's "limited" capacity of observation that way.
>To me, that is the way to most naturally integrate the observer.
AAAA: To become monist is really "observer-integrating" - Bohm and others calls it holism.
But you need to leave the observer-position of physicist's to consider human knowing as well - and
that the build-up of human knowing that has another basis but observation.
>I think that Arnes assumption that the observer somehow innocently on her
own approaches the world and thus gets her own personal impressions or >measurement results
or sensory data from the world - that is totally impossible!
AAAA: This is your belief evidently. Would you then be so kind to tell me then in what way you think
a newly born child approaches the "world"?
>As an individual you approach the world with the conglomerate of tools and
theories that are materialization of the collective enterprise.
AAAA: I'll repeat the foregoing question here.
>So you are in the loop, where you may just contribute with n+1st attempt to
approach THE SAME WORLD. And that is very essential.
AAAA: Agree but THIS SAME WORD IS NOT REAL - IT IS CONCEPTUAL - mirroring the situation we use THE
SAME NAMES appointing the phenomena of our experience. To find out that all people PROBABLY refer to
the same sort of REALITY - is a act of mature consideration that take place late in life and
education - to find out that this REALITY only can be described as a "body" of stability
requires that one leaves the realist's (way) system of speaking. THIS IS A CONSEQUENCE OF GOEDEL'S
SECOND INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM - YOU CANNOT PROVE OR DISPROVE A SYSTEM FROM WITHIN. Accordingly it
seems reasonable that that the insight REALITY=STABILITY does not come until you dare to leave the
realist's way of thinking eventually by questioning its fundaments. This state of mature thinking is
bound to happen even at a later stage in life - however it seems most scientists do not even bother.
>The world is the same during this short period of time we are here on
earth. Otherwise, no science, and no human communication would ever be possible without >the
existence of that fast point - constantly existing and essentially stable physical world. I am
realist, not unusual for a physicist.
AAAA: This sounds very dogmatic to me - an attitude one often find among realists unfortunately. You
have to dare to question the basis of our own realistic thinking - and then you will see the
inconsistencies of this framework hopefully. Otherwise you have to put your trust in Goedel.
> What I claim is that you don't even see without the help from others.
AAAA: Can the newly born baby see or not? Of course I can see without the help of others - don't you
think a bat sees? I claim I can even formulate thoughts as newly born - well even explicate myself
without the help of others. We usually cry when we are newly born - we explicate a feeling (feel) -
don't you think so? What I cannot do however is to COMMUNICATE WITH OTHERS WITHOUT THEIR HELP - but
this is quite a different matter.
>Do you remember the first labs in microscopy? You have to find and
"see" an object say an eye of a fly.
AAAA: It seem me as a rushed conclusion. To me this story says that unless you have a theory (the
"right" theory?) you cannot perceive what you think your teacher perceives. From where did
the teacher get his theory? Does he has access to the truth bu any means? Well to me this is a
lesson in the theory-laden-ness of perception - which is actually the fundamental cause of human
incapacity to decide what is real from unreal.
>This summer I am writing my PhD thesis on information semantics (which is
characterized as computer science but is a mix with theory of science and >philosophy) ,
which also includes some of my papers on scientific methodology. (My first PhD was in
theoretical physics, so you can understand where my >philosophical orientations come from).
Soon I will have a readable version of my dissertation (& a book on the same topic will be
published afterwards) that I can >send to the list for comments.
>I think the discussion was rewarding about quantum computing and
measurement up to now, and I join Arne in saying that Andrei is one of very few physicists (or
>scientists for that part) who dares to test his own premises.
AAAA: Well at least something we can agree upon - but I sincerely hope you dare to test you own
premises.
Best wishes,
----- Original Message -----
Dear Andrei and Arne,
I think it can be a new very productive paradigm now when one can afford to treat those
processes individually so and not anonymize them making simplifying assumption that they in average
are the same. We might now start to be interested in what they do when they keep individual
behaviors and what is even more important individual strategies - that might be especially relevant
in biological systems.
To me, that is the way to most naturally integrate the observer.
I think that Arnes assumption that the observer somehow innocently on her own approaches
the world and thus gets her own personal impressions or measurement results or sensory data from the
world - that is totally impossible!
As an individual you approach the world with the conglomerate of tools and theories that
are materialization of the collective enterprise.
Do you remember the first labs in microscopy? You have to find and "see" an
object say an eye of a fly.
This summer I am writing my PhD thesis on information semantics (which is characterized
as computer science but is a mix with theory of science and philosophy) , which also includes some
of my papers on scientific methodology. (My first PhD was in theoretical physics, so you can
understand where my philosophical orientations come from). Soon I will have a readable version of my
dissertation (& a book on the same topic will be published afterwards) that I can send to the
list for comments.
I think the discussion was rewarding about quantum computing and measurement up to now,
and I join Arne in saying that Andrei is one of very few physicists (or scientists for that part)
who dares to test his own premises.
With best regards,
_______________________________________________
|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Fri 21 Jul 2006 - 11:42:55 CEST