Dear Collegues,
Thank you for intensive reply to concluding part of our discussion on
classical and quantum information which was finally transformed in
essentially more general discussion on meaning of information and
realist\'s dilemma. Finally, after reading all replies, I am not sure
that there is really consensus. I still stay on the position that there
is objective reality that exists independently on our existence and our
ability to understand it or to be more precise -- to describe it, in
sence to create a detailed model.
Yes, I agree that we would be never
able to create a complete model. Any model that we create or will
create provides just an approximation. Classical statistical mechanics
was approximation. I believe that (in spite claims of Bohr, Heisenberg,
Pauli, Fock, Landau, von Neumann and 99% of modern physicisists) that
QM is incomplete as well (as Einstein and Schrodinger as well as Bohm
and Bell were sure). It is also an approximation. This approximation is
very good so we are not able yet to see violations of predictions of
QM, see my recent papers at quant, www.arXiv.org.
But this is our problem and not the problem of reality.
If we follow the line of Arne of realism/antirealism, then what should
we say about LAWS OF NATURE? I think that we would come to the
conclusion that there is no such laws at all. Such a conclusion is not
astonishing in the light of modern views to QM. Since QM (by the
conventional Copenhagen interpretation) declared the death of
determinism (and not because our impossibility to find such
deterministic dynamics, but because quantum randomness is irredusible),
it seems that at the quantum level we are not able to consider physical
laws. We are able only to find some statistical correlations.
I think that this is totally wrong position. As Newton was, I am also
surprised by harmony and consistence in Nature. It could not be just a
product of our social agreement. Well, finally Newton came to the idea
of God who was responsible for this harmony.
Finally, about reality of mental processes and reality of information.
Shortly my position is that real world is not world of material objects.
The latter is simply a shadow of huge information world. And laws of
Nature are laws of informational dynamics. The latter is indepent form
its possible representations, e.g., from teh material one.
Of course, the main problem is as Soren Brier emphasized that we do not
have at the moment the real understanding of information. It is always
reduced to the definition of probability, through entropy.
With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
> Yes, indeed there is consensus. Let me go thru Arne\'s points about
> the
> functioning of the brain so that we can deepen the consensus.
>
> Arne:
>
> I will also take the opportunity to say that my point with
> formulating the
> realist\'s dilemma was to point out that a human being in principle is
> unable
> to produce a model of human perception on the basis of
> observation/experimentation. The human capacity of perception is the
> cause
> of this shortcoming, which is then also a shortcoming of the
> experimental
> methodology - a fact that is seldom recognised. The brain-internal
> feed-back
> pathways of data (not information!) here play a decisive role. The
> human
> brain has not evolved to an instrument of truth replication at all -
> on the
> contrary the brain is magnificent tool of adaptation.
>
> Karl:
>
> The human brain has evolved to maximise reproductional chances
> (Darwin).
> Insofar truth replication is a part of increasing chances of
> reproduction,
> that brain is preferred above others, which do not, in the quest for
> reproduction, that recognises truth. Truth being a re-membered,
> re-cognised
> state of the brain, the process definitely has something to do with
> re-doing
> something (in the same fashion, over the same subject, with the same
> methods). Therefore we can recognise that our brain is biased
> towards
> recognising entities which are similar to each other. (That animal
> which
> recognises where it can feed and what to avoid has better chances of
> survival and reproduction than another which does not recognise
> similarities.)
>
> Arne:
>
> Well - back to our dawning consensus. When we are unable to make
> certain
> decisions by observation/experiments we are BOUND to decide by
> consensual
> decisions - and thus directed to a science based on social
> construction and
> consensus.
>
> Karl:
>
> The social consensus we observe is that similarity is the clever way
> to use
> the brain.
>
> Arne:
>
> To my mind (and Bohr\'s) there is only one - the domain of
> experience;
> personally constructed experience and shared/consensually
> constructed
> \"experience\" (or scientifically constructed models).
>
> Karl:
>
> In FIS we have constructed a common experience of trying to feel into
> a
> consensus that another clever way to use the brain is to concentrate
> on
> dissimilarities existing alongside similarities while organising
> into
> systems of thought-up, abstracted, experienced, etc. ways of using
> the
> brain.
>
> Arne:
>
> To my surprise it seems we finally landed on a platform of consensus
> --- and
> I fully agree with Pedro when saying the future will tell whether we
> are
> able to trascend formal analogies
>
> Karl:
>
> Why is there a need to transcend formal analogies? They are quite
> useful.
> Let us use the formal analogies that are there, time-honoured and
> consensual, but let us use them in a different fashion (alongside the
> usual
> fashions).
>
> Arne:
> . achieve a new, more catholic approach to information / and science
> as a
> whole/
>
> Karl:
>
> Why so timid? We are the catholic fount of veritas in things
> concerning the
> theory of information. Indeed, this group has evolved a concept of
> information that hasx quite many aspects to it. And to be more
> traditional
> as by explaining it all by the logical rounding error one commits
> when
> conducting an addition - I mean, what is less offensive than that?
> Catholic
> in the sense that it is all-pervading it is because it is rooted in
> numbers
> and counting; catholic in that sense that it is within a system of
> concepts
> and fits neatly - well, counting IS the core dogma of mathematics.
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Oct 26 07:30:15 2006
