Dear Andrei and colleagues,
I think we together have found out that the realist's and anti-realist's
systems are both plain believe systems. If you plead for either of them you
are bound to embrace realism or anti-realism by personal belief since
science cannot in principle device an experimental procedure to come to such
a decision in that matter. In that respect it sounds that also this very
controversy is undecidable - but not so. What we have missed evidently is to
emphasize that a mature science cannot house answers to questions that are
undecidable without degenerating to a framework of plain speculations. Since
the realist/antirealist controversy is undecidable the very question "Is
reality real?" unfortunately juxtaposes to another famous question "Is there
a God?" and both must by necessity be answered by reference to subjective
belief - even if consensual (i.e., that the majority believes in a real
reality or a God). A mature science, however, must be able to forcefully
reject undecidable questions - but today's science does not! This very point
has passed almost unnoticed. Most literature on philosophy is lousy with
questions that are undecidable - however this does not seem to prevent the
author to present answers - on the contrary - they generally supply answers
en masse. However in this situation any answer is as bad a candidate as
another - since the mistake is to try to provide an answer to an undecidable
question.
This has little to do with philosophy. The problem lies in the fundamental
assumptions underlying science. Since the real/unreal question is
undecidable a real/unreal distinction is strictly forbidden and therefore
also the ordinary outside/inside distinction as made by the cognitive
sciences. One of the fundamental definitions of classical science is that
there is a real (and furthermore unary) world that is well separated from
human knowledge - and here the mentioned forbidden distinction deceitfully
appears. If we accept this misleading situation we can discuss the
real/illusory question for centuries (as mankind already have done) but no
answer will come out because there simply is none. To my mind the now almost
closed FIS discussion was just another iteration of this fruitless
discourse - unfortunately.
A physicist would never dare to use an instrument he doesn't understand -
however the very same physicist can without precautions make use of his
perceptual instrument without even a rudimentary understanding of its
function. Isn't it strange? The clue to the present confused situation of
science is to ask how it is possible for an observer to make a model of any
phenomenon - if he has not a model of its own mind at his disposal, exactly
in the same way we require a model of an instrument to understand its
function. The realist's dilemma was an attempt to highlight this very
situation, but unfortunately nobody tried an answer or even challenged the
dilemma as formulated. An observer lacking of a model of its own perception
cannot model anything else but its own experience - exactly in the same way
a physicist using an unknown instrument cannot make sound decisions. This
very conclusion disqualifies the scientific observer to make certain
inference - and also to use the celebrated experimental methodology as a
crisp decision tool. In this situation we must resort to human consensus and
a science based on social constructs.
When the real/unreal distinction is forbidden also the real/mental
distinction is forbidden and useless as well, as R. Rorty clearly points out
in his book The Mirror of Nature. However the problem here is not to decide
as to whether the world is real or not - what is required is to understand
that this very question is undecidable by experimental means and should not
be asked at all for that reason. This is a point of view I have been arguing
for - evidently in vain. This finding only invalidate experiment as a
decision tool - and what is left then is to make a personal decision on that
matter (formulate a belief). This is also science - but not classical
science based on the outcome of physical experiments but rather a science
based on human consensus.
Returning to the fundaments of science we can of course ad hoc define two
different domains; one real and another mental and then keep yourself busy
the whole life debating this question - and this debate has been on the
agenda since the dawn of science. No surprise since it is undecidable within
the classical framework. This is why science must abort undecidable
questions from its discourse. Not only the real/unreal question - but a row
of other questions like e.g.: "What is matter?" By the way what kind of an
answer do we expect? The real/unreal controversy (not the question) is
solved when we start evaluate what sort of questions we are allowed to pose
to the models we make use of in science. In future though we cannot go on
pretending we are in the possession of answers of questions that are
undecidable in principle. When doing so we act like priest pretending to
have access to God's point of view.
You have done a great job Andrei and I consider you a very brave scientist
by the very way you straightforwardly in detail present your ideas - but
sometimes I cannot make sense of your saying. You say we cannot
<<understand>> reality and still you claim it to be "real" ???? You say
"information is not less real than mass or charge" Not a misleading
statement - but it lacks of useful meaning. It just begs the question: "What
is real?" - indeed a forbidden question since there is no answer.
Neither I can I agree with you and Søren Brier that the main problem is that
in modern science information is always reduced to probability. I think the
opposite is the problem; Namely that scientists once came to believe that
certain immutable answers are possible. There are no such answers - they are
all more or less probable - and therefore reduces to probability calculus.
Evidently not even you are satisfied with your point of view since you
finally conclude" there should be done something cardinally new..."
well - since scientific dualism evidently is misleading I have argued for
scientific monism in the guise of the Subject-Oriented Approach to Knowing .
this is something cardinally new...
I am afraid I was neither clear nor very successful in this deed.. but I'll
find comfort in the saying that people sometimes do not even recognise the
path towards home when they see it.
Thank you for staging these stimulating discussions
- you really have done a great job
Arne
Arne Kjellman PhD
Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences
Stockholm University and KTH
Forum 100
S-164 40 Kista
SWEDEN
For direct correspondence use this address:
Skrangstabodarna 140
S-852 96 Sundsvall SWEDEN
phone +46-60 36430
Home-page http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Sep 12 21:22:40 2006
