Dear Arne,
I agree with some your ideas and disagree with others.
>
> In this ontological issue I fully support Andrei - and to my mind Ted
> is mi=
> staken because a separation between what is the contribution of an
> eventual=
> reality and the contribution of learned in theories of observation
> is in p=
> rinciple impossible. The reason for this is the (rarely recognised)
> limited=
> human capacity of perception, where evolution has favoured
> adaptiveness be=
> fore tha ability truthfulness of (re)presentation.
Andrei: I completely agree with this. So all our physical theories are
just approximations, but I still think (as Einstein did) that there is
real-reality beyond our observations (so Moon exists even when nobody
looks at it).
Yes our perceptions and feeling play the crucial role in that picture of
reality that we created. But here created has the meaning that we just
extracted a part of reality that could be represented by our
perceptions. I agree that it is a very small part of reality, moreover,
our representation is very special and it depends on models. We create
MODELS, but these are models of real-reality.
Information is information about reality. Nowdays in QI community is
extremely popular Fuchsian (named to my friend Chris Fuchs from Bell
Lab) interpretation of QM: wave function is just information
representation of our believes about physical systems. Quantum
probabilities are subjective probabilities. I think that such
interpretation is the most close to yours.
Such picture is not acceptable for me, two days ago we had the great
battle during the round table of the conference \"Foundations of
Probability and Physics-4\" in Vaxjo with Chris. But I need objective
probabilities and hence information. For the creator of teh frequency
probability theory Richard von Mises, probabilities for coin trials were
as real as e.g. the mass of this coin.
All the best, Andrei
> I have been workning with a Subject-Oriented Approach to human
> knowing (SOA=
> ) for 10 years now and in this view the pieces fall neatly into
> place. The =
> SOA take almost nothing for pre-given (granted) to human epistemology
> - not=
> even a physical space. Maybe these ideas are most easy captured
> considerin=
> g Andrei\'s introduction to the on-going FIS-discussion:
> >>We recall that quantum mechanics by itself is a huge building
> having the=
> sand-fundament -the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. On one hand,
> there=
> was created >>the advanced mathematical formalism (calculus of
> probabiliti=
> es in the complex Hilbert space) giving predictions which are
> supported by =
> all existing experimental data. >>On the other hand, it is still
> unclear wh=
> y this formalism works so well and moreover it is not clear what it
> really =
> predicts, because by the orthodox Copenhagen >>interpretation
(which
> is the=
> conventional interpretation) quantum mechanics is not about physical
> reali=
> ty by itself, but about just our observations (of what?). All
> >>unsolved pr=
> oblems of quantum foundations are essentially amplified in the
> quantum info=
> rmation project. Problems which were of a purely philosophic interest
> durin=
> g one >>hundred years became technological and business
problems.=20
> My claim is that the SOA cements the sand-fundament of the CI by
> introducin=
> g as \"reversed\" causality where the percepts and observations
are the
> \"caus=
> es\" of the reality-conception. Reality, which in turn, stands for
> just the =
> recurrent stability of human perception (with no further (forbidden)
> ontolo=
> gical implications). See Wittgenstein: \"Whereof we cannot speak we
> must be =
> silent\" To Andrei\'s question of what is the essence of observation
-
> my rep=
> ly is \"observation\" ie the feelings or complexity of feels a
that
> normal hu=
> man experience each second of his life. During the years I have
> learnt that=
> human \"feels\" are the consistent base of human
conceptualisation
> even if t=
> his idea heavily upsets most classically trained minds. (I simply
> fear the=
> objections that are very common - and sometimes are as cruel as
> they are =
> inconsiderate - but I urge the interested person to give this
> approach a tr=
> y - in spite of difficulty of approach).=20
> Admittedly \"feels\" are strictly private phenomena but I
definitely
> know it =
> is quite possible to build a consistent science based on a strict
> social co=
> nsensus (a new paradigm and unfortunately counter-intuitive one) -
> and this=
> is what we need as most of us know that today\'s science push us
> deeper and=
> deeper in despair - in spite of its claimed success. It make little
> differ=
> ence if one mathematically treats signs of feels instead of states of
> reali=
> ty - but in the first case one get ride of the troublesome
\"reality\"
> concep=
> tion. In this view science has little to do with unveiling the truth
> (of Go=
> d\'s or Evolutions creation) but rather about predicting what feels
> will com=
> e up in my consciousness in future based on my collected experience.
> No com=
> mitent to some reality (beside my feels) are necessary in this view.
> The co=
> mmon universe of science fades away giving place to a private
> creation - a =
> PRIVERSE - where each living being has its own priverse. This
> priverse will=
> assist me in prediction - and the guide to the build-up of such a
> priverse=
> is \"usefulness\" - which includes consensuality since it is
very
> useful for=
> a human being to belong to a group. This insight also drags the
> celibrated=
> truth conception into disreputation.
> Of course it is impossible to \"prove\" such an approach - as
it is
> impossibl=
> e as find an experimental proof or disproof on reality - simply
> because bot=
> h questions are undecidable. This has become the normal state of
> affairs si=
> nce Goedels incomleteteness theorems. However it is quite easy to
> show that=
> the idea of a pre-given reality (or any other pre-given phenomenon
> for tha=
> t matter) is superfluous and therefore unscientific. Also the
> real/dream (o=
> r real/abstract) distinction is misleading because it is simply
> undecidable=
> . If we call perception for real or dream matters little as long as
> the con=
> cept used serve as useful instrument of prediction ... which I think
> also s=
> omewhat captures the essence of the CI.=20
> It is possible to indicate that a science can be erected upon the
> idea of p=
> rivate feels but I cannot got further into the SOA here - and
> unfortunately=
> my homepage is bit of a mess. But to those interested a paper of
> mine rece=
> ntly appeared in Kybernetes: The crisis of contemporary science, Vol:
> 35 Is=
> sue 3/4, 2006.=20
>
> Regards Arne Kjellman=20=20
>
> Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences
> Stockholm University and KTH
>
> Home-page http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/=20
> =20=20=20=20
> ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C68B0C.8502F5F0
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset=\"iso-8859-1\"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC \"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
Transitional//EN\">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D\"text/html;
> charset=3Diso-8859-1\">
> <META content=3D\"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180\"
name=3DGENERATOR>
> <DEFANGED_style_0 </STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>Dear Collegues,</DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>Andrei wrote in reply to Ted:</DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>>> >In the orthodox
copenhagen
> interpretation,=
> the main=20
> problem is that<BR>it is strongly forbidden to consider
onthological
> levels=
> .=20
> There is only<BR>one level -- level of observations. If you want go
> beyond =
> this=20
> layer,<BR>you go by definition beyond
science.<BR>>> =20
> >Andrei<BR><BR>Ted\'s reply
was:<BR>>> No, my friend, I
> go be=
> yond=20
> Copenhagen, for certain. But modern<BR>>>
thought on the
> nature=
> of=20
> modeling (including theoretical
models)<BR>>> separates
> out=20
> representational issues, perhaps in layers,
from<BR>>>
> natural=
> =20
> behavior. Science is about understanding, at least as I
> see<BR>>>&nbs=
> p;=20
> it. </DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>In this ontological issue I fully support Andrei -
and
> to my =
> mind Ted is=20
> mistaken because a separation between what is the contribution of an
> eventu=
> al=20
> reality and the contribution of learned in theories
> of observatio=
> n is=20
> in principle impossible. The reason for this is the (rarely
> recognised) lim=
> ited=20
> human capacity of perception, where evolution has favoured
> adaptiveness bef=
> ore=20
> tha ability truthfulness of (re)presentation.</DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>I have been workning with a Subject-Oriented Approach
> to huma=
> n knowing=20
> (SOA) for 10 years now and in this view the pieces fall neatly
> into pl=
> ace.=20
> The SOA take almost nothing for pre-given (granted) to human
> epistemol=
> ogy -=20
> not even a physical space. Maybe these ideas are most easy captured
> conside=
> ring=20
> Andrei\'s introduction to the on-going
> FIS-discussion:</DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>>>We recall that quantum mechanics by
itself is a
> huge =
> building =20
> having the sand-fundament =96the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation.
> On one=
> hand,=20
> there was created >>the advanced mathematical formalism
> (calculus of=
> =20
> probabilities in the complex Hilbert space) giving predictions which
> are=20
> supported by all existing experimental data. >>On the other
> hand, it =
> is=20
> still unclear why this formalism works so well and moreover it is not
> clear=
> what=20
> it really predicts, because by the orthodox Copenhagen
> >>interpretati=
> on=20
> (which is the conventional interpretation) quantum mechanics is not
> about=
> =20
> physical reality by itself, but about just our observations (of
> what?). All=
> =20
> >>unsolved problems of quantum foundations are essentially
> amplified =
> in=20
> the quantum information project. Problems which were of a purely
> philosophi=
> c=20
> interest during one >>hundred years became technological
and
> business=
> =20
> problems. </DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>My claim is that the SOA cements the sand-fundament
of
> the CI=
> by=20
> introducing as \"reversed\" causality where
the percepts and
> observation=
> s are=20
> the \"causes\" of the reality-conception. Reality, which in
turn,
> stands for =
> just=20
> the recurrent stability of human perception (with no further
> (forbidden)=20
> ontological implications). See Wittgenstein: \"Whereof we cannot
speak
> we mu=
> st be=20
> silent\" To Andrei\'s question of what is the essence of observation
-
> my rep=
> ly=20
> is \"observation\" ie the feelings or complexity of
feels a that
> normal=
> =20
> human experience each second of his life. During the years I
> have lear=
> nt=20
> that human \"feels\" are the consistent base of human
conceptualisation
> even =
> if=20
> this idea heavily upsets most classically trained minds.
> (I simp=
> ly=20
> fear the objections that are very common - and
sometimes
> are as =
> cruel=20
> as they are inconsiderate - but I urge the interested person to give
> this=
> =20
> approach a try - in spite of difficulty of
> approach). </DEFANGED_=
> DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>Admittedly \"feels\" are strictly private
phenomena but I
> defin=
> itely know it=20
> is quite possible to build a consistent science based on a strict
> social=20
> consensus (a new paradigm and unfortunately counter-intuitive one) -
> and th=
> is is=20
> what we need as most of us know that today\'s science push us
> deeper an=
> d=20
> deeper in despair - in spite of its claimed success. It make
> little=20
> difference if one mathematically treats signs of feels instead of
> states of=
> =20
> reality - but in the first case one get ride of the troublesome
> \"reality\"=
> =20
> conception. In this view science has little to do with unveiling the
> truth =
> (of=20
> God\'s or Evolutions creation) but rather about predicting what
> feels w=
> ill=20
> come up in my consciousness in future based on my collected
> experience. No=
> =20
> commitent to some reality (beside my feels) are necessary in this
> view. The=
> =20
> common universe of science fades away giving place to a
> private=
> =20
> creation - a PRIVERSE - where each living being has its own priverse.
> This=
> =20
> priverse will assist me in prediction - and the guide to the build-up
> of su=
> ch a=20
> priverse is \"usefulness\" - which includes consensuality since
it is
> very us=
> eful=20
> for a human being to belong to a group. This insight also drags the
> celibra=
> ted=20
> truth conception into disreputation.</DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>Of course it is impossible to \"prove\"
such an approach
> - as i=
> t is=20
> impossible as find an experimental proof or disproof on reality -
> simply be=
> cause=20
> both questions are undecidable. This has become the normal state of
> affairs=
> =20
> since Goedels incomleteteness theorems. However it is quite easy
> to sh=
> ow=20
> that the idea of a pre-given reality (or any other pre-given
> phenomenon for=
> that=20
> matter) is superfluous and therefore unscientific. Also the
> real/dream (or=
> =20
> real/abstract) distinction is misleading because it is simply
> undecidable. =
> If we=20
> call perception for real or dream matters little as long as the
> concept=20
> used serve as useful instrument of prediction ... which I think
> also=
> =20
> somewhat captures the essence of the CI. </DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>It is possible to indicate that a science can be
> erected upon=
> the idea of=20
> private feels but I cannot got further into the SOA here -
> and=20
> unfortunately my homepage is bit of a mess. But to those interested a
> paper=
> of=20
> mine recently appeared in Kybernetes: The crisis of contemporary
> science, V=
> ol:=20
> 35 Issue 3/4, 2006. </DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV>Regards Arne Kjellman </DEFANGED_DIV>
> <DEFANGED_DIV><BR>Dept. of Computer and Systems
Sciences<BR>Stockholm
> Unive=
> rsity and=20
> KTH<BR><BR>Home-page <A=20
>
href=3D\"\">http://www.dsv.su.se/~kjellman/</A> <BR> &n=
>
bsp;</DEFANGED_DIV></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C68B0C.8502F5F0--
>
>
>
With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Jun 8 19:06:15 2006
