RE: [Fis] CONSILIENCE: When separate inductions jump together

First I'd like to thank Malcolm for addressing my concerns, and for
providing such an interesting arrow in the heart of things. My comments will
not lead in any specific direction, I'll just try to be less logical and
more vague about consilience. I'm trying to establish the "space" of
discourse, rather than to decide yes/no.

1. Entropy

Entropy is an interesting example of attempted consilience. Entropy was
shown to correspond to thermodynamics for models of molecules. Entropy in
the sense of quantifying dispersion proved useful for any kind of a
statistical model. However, if entropy can be defined for a particular
model, it doesn't imply that the laws of thermodynamics will apply to that
model. In that sense, we have consilience in the notion of "dispersion" but
not consilience of the notion of "the arrow of time". Since entropy is
connected with both notions, there is mess. The solution is to split "arrow
of time" entropy and "dispersion".

2. Bell's theorem
 
Isn't using Bell's theorem as an example of consilience dangerous, as it's
loaded with assumptions? See for example: Karl Hess and Walter Philipp. A
possible loophole in the theorem of Bell. PNAS. vol. 98. no. 25. 14224-14227
December 4, 2001. Briefly, Bell's theorem indicates that if there are two
separated measurement stations measure an entangled pair of particles,
moving one station will influence the readings on the second station. This
is inconsistent with the view that the particles can be measured
independently. Operators are just one way of explaining this, often quite
confusing. But you get the same effect if you measure the waving of water in
a pond with your hands: if you move one hand in the pond, the waves at the
second hand will be affected. But note that the water in the pond can be
modelled causally. Would you want to model the pond with quantum operators?

3. Empirical test

We might be trying to be too discriminating for our own good here. There is
no such thing as a definitive test, there is no such thing as definitive
consilience. Consilience is just an increase in experimental support for a
theory outside the scope for which the theory was originally created. This
doesn't mean that the theory is the best, or unquestionably true. It's just
an increase of support and of generality. I may appear like an
instrumentalist, but I'm not. There are many things one doesn't question,
and they form the foundation for realism. Each concept can be truth today
and theory tomorrow. When you instrumentalistically move one foot, the other
needs to be on realistic solid ground, just for that moment.

4. Kepler and Newton

I have enjoyed Malcolm's example very much: consilience is about explicit
equality, not just implicit equality. Of course, if we don't allow for
explicit *approximate* equality, we might not be able to apply consilience
in other domains. Even in physics, for that matter, approximate equality is
used, as long as it is not systematically biased. For a real-life example,
take a look at "SEARCH FOR A STANDARD EXPLANATION OF THE PIONEER ANOMALY" at
arXiv:gr-qc/0107022: the Pioneer probes seem to be systematically slowing
down as they exit the solar system. One of the tongue-in-cheek comments on
internet forums about this phenomenon is "It's bumping against the crystal
sphere with the stars painted on it." True equality is only in the domain of
pure mathematics.

Best regards,
                Aleks

--
mag. Aleks Jakulin
http://www.ailab.si/aleks/
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, 
Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana. 
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis