Well, A Sign Of Intelligence!

[dduckwessel]

This is exactly what I'm saying: the conversation is not about you and your endeavors to reinterpret the bible. Read the OP.

CC

 

 

You're right the OP is about the fascinating subject of the dynamics of critical thinking and the various ways different people communicate those ideas (I think!).

[Rade]

Heh, no that's not what I mean. This is actually a typical mis-interpretation from your part, because you haven't picked up what we mean by "an explanation of undefined events". Molecules and elephants are not "undefined events", they are in themselves explanations of massive collections of undefined events. Or the way I often put it, they are your terminology, or your interpretation, of some collection of information whose explicit meaning is unknown.

OK, sure, this is exactly how I understood what you were saying, that EXPLANATIONS OF UNDEFINED EVENTS HAVE UNKNOWN EXPLICIT MEANING. This is what I was saying when I said that in your way of looking at photosynthesis using the Constructionist hypothesis that it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW the MEANING of WHY the O2 is released, that is, to KNOW if it is released from the H2O or CO2 or both or neither. I do understand what you mean when you say "an explanation of undefined events". Consider your definition of explanation, and we get "a mechanism for deriving rational expectation for some circumstance called an undefined event". Thus, to explain that something unknown as an event is released during photosynthesis is to provide a mechanism to derive rational expectations of the undefined event...to determine expectation probabilities for the event derived from input functions alone, nothing else available for analysis. This is application of black box theory.

 

If you are looking at a circumstance where "O2 is being released"' date=' then that very perception is already an interpretation of some large collection of information (even if we are talking about a single molecule, the amount of raw information behind that simple perception is huge). That such and such collection of events is to be interpreted as an entity that we call "O2", is already a choice of terminology; that is the terminology with which we mentally understand some particular collection(s) of "events" (we can't actually know what the events are, we can only know what our interpretation of them is).[/quote']Well, sure. So let us say instead we are looking at the circumstance of a photosynthetic experiment and there are a collection of "events" of something unknown released, thus in your philosophy we would say at the end of the experiment...look, the circumstance resulted in events where something unknown is released, how exciting. OK. Next question then should be, I wonder if the "something unknown that was released" had origin in one of the input functions or none of them or all of them. This is all I was trying to say.

 

Again' date=' a constructivist stance is not that "elephants exist objectively, but we are able to transform them mentally into something different looking things". The constructivist statement is that "elephants are part of our mental terminology with which we have come to categorize some collection of information".[/quote']No difference at all between these two the way you have worded the two arguments. Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Logically, the "collection of information" in your statements are impossible without "elephants that exist objectively". What exists that is presented to the human mind (e.g, some collection of information) is not created by "mental terminology", the mind does not create the collection of information, existence is prior to consciousness.

 

....we should view our defined entities as short hand references to some regularities' date=' within something whose true nature cannot be known.[/quote']Yes, of course humans cannot know "the meaning of the true nature of an elephant", only an elephant knows the true nature of being an elephant...I have no idea at all what you are saying here. Don't you understand that none of your "regularities" are possible unless there is SOMETHING unknown that is the origin of the regularities ? There must be some-THING, some OBJECT as THING that is prior to the mind to say that any "regularity" exists. The concept regularity is a worldview created by the human mind, but not in a vacuum, it derives from perception of some THING that shows a regular pattern of some sort. The unknown THING is what is called OBJECTIVE REALITY, a THING that EXISTS but that is UNKNOWN except to say that it EXISTS, not to say that is exists in this way or that way. If you reject this way of thinking, then sure, we really have nothing at all to discuss, we live in two completely different realities in how we relate to that which exists.

 

I said that because it is entirely possible that to her [Ayn Rand] "reality exists objectively" just means that our ideas about reality are based on something "out there"' date=' while not meaning that our representation of that "something" could be known to be true to reality.[/quote']AnssiH...to say "reality exists objectively" is 100% contradiction of Constructivist philosophy. But, I do believe you have perhaps ? a correct understanding of Rand. Rand does say that "reality exists objectively", as you say, that "reality is based on something out there". And, you are correct that Rand is not saying that our representation of what is "out there", the "object", can be known in-of-itself. What is KNOWN for Rand is the dialectic, the object as a representation by the subject [O+S]. But, an important point to understand Rand. She then says that the human mind can decouple the [O+S] that each KNOWN, is such a way that the [O] can be integrated via ABSTRACTION with all the other [O] stored in the mind from other perception events. This process Rand calls REASON or RATIONALITY and formation of concepts from perception and/or sensations.

 

Here is a quote from a book about Rand that perhaps will help you understand what she says about reality or that which exists:

 

"It is important to observe the interrelationship of these three axioms (existence, consciousness, identity). Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification"{Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand}.

[AnssiH]

Btw, lurkers, it would be nice to hear from you how are you interpreting what I am saying.

 

OK, sure, this is exactly how I understood what you were saying, that EXPLANATIONS OF UNDEFINED EVENTS HAVE UNKNOWN EXPLICIT MEANING. This is what I was saying when I said that in your way of looking at photosynthesis using the Constructionist hypothesis that it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW the MEANING of WHY the O2 is released, that is, to KNOW if it is released from the H2O or CO2 or both or neither.

 

That's not correct interpretation; of course it is possible for a constructivist to know "why the O2 is released" similar to an objectivst, if they have both decided to represent the situation in terms of those kinds of elements. Exactly the same experiments can be performed by both parties. The difference is that the constructivist doesn't think "O2" "H20" and such entities are the only way to represent the same experiment. He thinks there are very many ways to represent the same information for prediction purposes, and other ways would just be like a different language to say the same thing. Many of the possible languages would not represent the situation in terms of the kinds of entities you are calling "02", "H20" etc, at all.

 

I do understand what you mean when you say "an explanation of undefined events". Consider your definition of explanation, and we get "a mechanism for deriving rational expectation for some circumstance called an undefined event".

 

Well a circumstance is not a single event but a collection of undefined events. The idea with the event being "undefined" is that there are no properties to it, any properties are definitions that are associated with large collections of "undefined events". That is important because it is what yields the symmetries in DD's arguments.

 

Thus, to explain that something unknown as an event is released during photosynthesis is to provide a mechanism to derive rational expectations of the undefined event...to determine expectation probabilities for the event derived from input functions alone, nothing else available for analysis. This is application of black box theory.

 

Also not really related to what I was talking about. Don't think of this as an explanation related to an analysis about particular inputs and outputs, think of it more as possibilities in terms of what kinds of languages can be used to express expectations in the first place, starting from the point where absolutely nothing has yet been defined. That is, the language in which you express your expectations is absolutely open, as long as inductive expectations can be expressed.

 

Only one or some of all the possible languages would see the information in terms of interaction between "O2", "H2O" etc, With different definitions towards the fundamental laws/dynamics, the same collection of undefined information would appear to consist of very different looking elements.

 

You know different QM interpretations are already a pretty clear example of something like this. They are different language representations of "fundamental dynamics", but they all express the same expectations, based on the same underlying collection of information.

 

Well, sure. So let us say instead we are looking at the circumstance of a photosynthetic experiment and there are a collection of "events" of something unknown released, thus in your philosophy we would say at the end of the experiment...look, the circumstance resulted in events where something unknown is released

 

Well no. If I am capable of understanding "what the experiment is", then I have already chosen the terminology that I am using. That is the terminology with which I am interpreting the result too. If it's a quantum experiment, then I would probably think about it in terms of some quantum interpretation in my mind; whichever would be most convenient in that case. But I would not think of the elements that I'm thinking about as things that literally exist. I would think of them as a language with which I'm expressing expectations in my mind.

 

Logically, the "collection of information" in your statements are impossible without "elephants that exist objectively". What exists that is presented to the human mind (e.g, some collection of information) is not created by "mental terminology", the mind does not create the collection of information, existence is prior to consciousness.

 

This reflects the remaining paradigm difficulty here. I have not actually said the collection of information is "created by the mind". I said, what we think some information means/is, is just our interpretation of it. "Elephant" is an interpretation, not the explicit information itself.

 

If you think of some information in terms of a many worlds interpretation, that doesn't make many worlds true. Likewise, if you think of some information in terms of an elephant, that doesn't make the elephant true.

 

"Map is not the territory", "whatever you say it is, it isn't", and so on.

 

You know, it's much clearer to think of this issue in terms of the most general/fundamental mechanisms that a particular world view has defined. Elephants are very complex collections of whatever fundamental entites have been defined. It is much easier to see and prove that different sets of fundamental entities are equivalent to what you have defined. As long as you believe that elephants are made of the same fundamental elements as everything else, that is. :)

 

Yes, of course humans cannot know "the meaning of the true nature of an elephant", only an elephant knows the true nature of being an elephant...

 

Heh, no I did not mean what it's like to be an elephant. I meant what is supposedly ontologically correct way to express the structure of an elephant. I.e., what I said just above.

 

I have no idea at all what you are saying here. Don't you understand that none of your "regularities" are possible unless there is SOMETHING unknown that is the origin of the regularities ? There must be some-THING, some OBJECT as THING that is prior to the mind to say that any "regularity" exists.

 

Of course. The whole trick is to think of that something as completely undefined, prior to us defining it. It feels very natural for us to start with some assumption as to "what it is (like)", and that's what most everyone is doing. What DD is doing is he starts with the idea that we base our definitions onto something undefined (well, of course we do), and he analyzes the possibilites of terminology from that startpoint. (i.e., he is basically analyzing consequences of self-consistency to a terminology for expressing expectations)

 

That is why he is always so frustrated when everybody want to map his idea of "undefined events" to some defined things they happen to have in their mind. If you do that, you have already chosen a language, haven't you? Your black box example contains many defined objects already.

 

The concept regularity is a worldview created by the human mind, but not in a vacuum, it derives from perception of some THING that shows a regular pattern of some sort. The unknown THING is what is called OBJECTIVE REALITY, a THING that EXISTS but that is UNKNOWN except to say that it EXISTS, not to say that is exists in this way or that way. If you reject this way of thinking, then sure, we really have nothing at all to discuss, we live in two completely different realities in how we relate to that which exists.

 

...

 

AnssiH...to say "reality exists objectively" is 100% contradiction of Constructivist philosophy. But, I do believe you have perhaps ? a correct understanding of Rand.

 

We seem to interpret Ayn Rand the same way, but you seem to be mis-interpreting a constructivist stance. Certainly a constructivist also defines "reality" as "whatever exists out there". He just points out that our understanding of it is never what it in itself is, but rather our understanding of it is a very particular terminology, that is necessary for expressing expectations. Think about it, reality in itself is not concerned of expressing expectations. To be able to express expectations, you need to create all kinds of concepts that otherwise do not actually exist. On interesting concept in particular is that you need to assume that certain elements just persist as "themselves" temporally. Is that meaningful, apart from being part of a language to express expectations?

 

It looks more and more to me that Ayn Rand also mis-interpreted Kant in this respect. Of course he thought reality is "something out there". He was just concerned of epistemological questions as to how "something out there" can be understood in the first place. His arguments had nothing to do with the idea that our mind creates something "out there", he was also talking about a creation of a representation of reality.

 

Rand does say that "reality exists objectively", as you say, that "reality is based on something out there". And, you are correct that Rand is not saying that our representation of what is "out there", the "object", can be known in-of-itself. What is KNOWN for Rand is the dialectic, the object as a representation by the subject [O+S]. But, an important point to understand Rand. She then says that the human mind can decouple the [O+S] that each KNOWN, is such a way that the [O] can be integrated via ABSTRACTION with all the other [O] stored in the mind from other perception events. This process Rand calls REASON or RATIONALITY and formation of concepts from perception and/or sensations.

 

It sounds a lit like he is referring to conscious efforts of contemplation. If she is referring to epistemological fundamentals (like me and DD are), even then it is possible to interpret that in a way that it's exactly what a constructivist would think, because the "reason and rationality" would always have to boil down to inductively arrived results anyway (Because all other types of logical reasoning always have to be based on ideas that are based on inductive reasoning, when you go all the way down to the point when the information was completely undefined).

 

"It is important to observe the interrelationship of these three axioms (existence, consciousness, identity). Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification"{Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand}.

 

From that, I can't pick up what she means by "existence" and "identity" exactly.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

Hello AnissH. Thank you for the time of your response to my comments. So many times I read that we have different 'interpretation' of words written. QM is a nice example of how this can result. I am aware of 7 different interpretations of QM, all of them valid and internally consistent with laws of nature. What this tells me is that there is no single valid EXPLANATION of QM, only 7 (or more) valid INTERPRETATIONS. I believe the same is true of the Fundamental Equation of DD. There is no single valid explanation of it, only multiple valid interpretations. You have one such valid interpretation, I another, perhaps someone else reading this yet another, etc.

 

If so, why do we spend so much time on this ? Much more important to move to other topics. So, for example, I still wait for an answer to my question above:

 

Comment of Rade: Could you please give a few examples of relationships between things that we learn from DD that we could not learn from intuition.

 

This topic is of great importance to help with understanding the claim being made, please let us discuss such examples.

 

==

 

Concerning Constructivism, there are many different versions. I think it possible we talk about two different versions.

 

Please read this essay by Warrick and let me know which version of Constructivism you are talking about.

 

http://mason.gmu.edu/~wwarrick/Portfolio/Products/constructivism.html

 

See also the discussion of Rand's Objectivist philosophy and how it is contrasted with Constructivist philosophy, seems appropriate to me, but perhaps not to an Objectivist philosopher.

 

I take it from your comments in last post that you would NOT consider yourself to be what is called a "radical Constructivist", but perhaps I error. If true, then we are in near 100% agreement on philosophic basics.

[Qfwfq]

Btw, lurkers, it would be nice to hear from you how are you interpreting what I am saying.

I look through your posts when I have an ounce of time for it, bit my time isn't sufficient for getting into the usual kind of miscommunication that we end up in.

[AnssiH]

Hello AnissH. Thank you for the time of your response to my comments. So many times I read that we have different 'interpretation' of words written. QM is a nice example of how this can result. I am aware of 7 different interpretations of QM, all of them valid and internally consistent with laws of nature. What this tells me is that there is no single valid EXPLANATION of QM, only 7 (or more) valid INTERPRETATIONS.

 

Wait a minute, you are phrasing this entirely from an objectivist terminology and if you think we use the word "explanation" the way you are using in there, you are also interpreting me completely upside down.

 

The "explanation" I've been talking about is an explanation of undefined information, which means quantum mechanics is an explanation." Reality is not actually know to be quantum mechanical; quantum mechanical behaviour is what our representation of reality is like.

 

What quantum mechanical interpretations are, they are just different ways to represent the same relationships, which are ultimately tied to some regularities in something undefined; we are always free to represent the same regularities in many different ways, because we don't really know what the information means; we just create some definitions for our own prediction purposes.

 

I think the difficulty you are feeling in interpreting what me and DD have been talking about over the years have to to do with the fact that you always view "explanations" as some things that further explain some specific properties, mechanics, or aspects of something. That is completely different from analyzing explanations of completely undefined data.

 

But if you think about, you should understand that explanation of reality is always fundamentally an explanation of something completely undefined. That has got nothing to do with at how deep we can analyze the structure of our own thoughts consciously (not deep enough for what we are discussing)

 

Do you understand why I'm saying all that?

 

I believe the same is true of the Fundamental Equation of DD. There is no single valid explanation of it, only multiple valid interpretations. You have one such valid interpretation, I another, perhaps someone else reading this yet another, etc.

 

Well it's just a set of logical tools expressing complex relationships, not really an expression of reality or an expression of an interpretation of reality or anything like that. So, just like there is a correct interpretation of what "1 + 1 = 2" means (at least in the mind of the person who has defined what those symbols means for himself), there is also a correct interpretation of what DD means. Of course it is still fundamentally impossible for me to know whether I am interpreting him correctly, but I'm confident to the point that it is very useful for me.

 

And that interpretation yields some important understanding to the epistemological consequences of expressing inductive expectations of undefined information.

 

So, for example, I still wait for an answer to my question above:

 

 

I answered to it quite extensively at the end of post #11

 

Concerning Constructivism, there are many different versions. I think it possible we talk about two different versions.

 

Please read this essay by Warrick and let me know which version of Constructivism you are talking about.

 

http://mason.gmu.edu/~wwarrick/Portfolio/Products/constructivism.html

 

See also the discussion of Rand's Objectivist philosophy and how it is contrasted with Constructivist philosophy, seems appropriate to me, but perhaps not to an Objectivist philosopher.

 

I take it from your comments in last post that you would NOT consider yourself to be what is called a "radical Constructivist", but perhaps I error. If true, then we are in near 100% agreement on philosophic basics.

 

Blah that text is so boring. I might read it if I have time but I doubt it because it's just too much work to figure out what the writer really means... Don't you think? Do you see the ambiguity of those kinds of texts? For now I just did a quick search for "radical constructivist", and found;

 

"The radical constructivist would argue that there is no reality other than what the student creates."

 

I have no idea how the writer means that. Does he mean that the student literally creates reality, i,e, that "nothing" would exist without thinking about it, or does he mean that the way the student understands reality is its entirety is created by the student (or rather, is an epistemological method of prediction), which means any defined entity or object that the student perceives, is more accurately just a way the student interprets some information in the particular terminology of his world view.

 

The former would be exactly the same stance as idealism, so I seriously doubt the writer means that (why wouldn't he just call it idealism?). At the same time I strongly suspect that that is exactly how you interpreted that phrase.

 

The latter would be more in line with what DD and me have been talking about. It means, for instance, that quantum mechanical objects are not realistic objects, they are just a way to represent something in predictive fashion. Quite a bit more rational position, isn't it?

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

The "explanation" I've been talking about is an explanation of undefined information, which means quantum mechanics is an explanation."

Most would say that quantum mechanics is a theory. So, sure, as a theory QM can use principles to explain phenomena, such as "undefined information". This is not what I was talking about. What I was saying is that, while QM can explain phenomena because it is a theory, there is not any valid explanation of QM as a theory, only internally consistent interpretations of it. In other words, there is no valid explanation how a quanta transitions from one energy level to another, or how the wave transitions into a particle or a particle into a wave. Or, perhaps I error and you have such an explanation ?

 

Reality is not actually known to be quantum mechanical

But' date=' how do you know this to be a true statement ? For example, David Bohm has said "at the quantum level of accuracy, the universe is an indivisible whole". As such, given that logically reality is that which exists in the universe, one can argue following Bohm "at the quantum level of accuracy, reality as that which exists in the universe is known to be an indivisible whole via evidence provided by quantum level measurement".

 

Well it's {the fundamental equation of DD} just a set of logical tools expressing complex relationships, not really an expression of reality or an expression of an interpretation of reality or anything like that.

OK, this helps clarify the role of the fundamental equation, because it sure does appear in many post that the fundamental equation is presented in such a way as an interpretation of reality. Nice to know such thinking is false.

 

I answered to it quite extensively at the end of post #11

Sorry' date=' I missed that part of the response in #11 post. I will read it and see if I have any questions.

 

..there is also a correct interpretation of what DD means. Of course it is still fundamentally impossible for me to know whether I am interpreting him correctly...

But you miss my point, there is not "a correct" interpretation, but many. Just as there are many correct interpretations of QM, there are many different correct (internally consistent) interpretations of what DD means, not only his interpretation. Thus, it really does not matter if you or me or anyone else are interpreting as DD does, only that your interpretation is also as correct as his.

 

"The radical constructivist would argue that there is no reality other than what the student creates."I have no idea how the writer means that. Does he mean that the student literally creates reality' date=' i,e, that "nothing" would exist without thinking about it...[/quote']Yes, this is exactly what the radical constructivist means, that the consciousness creates reality, see how silly the words are. As you say, a much more rational position to hold is that reality is prior to consciousness, and the two form a union within consciousness such that the reality in-of-itself is not known, and here we are in 100% agreement. Now, this is not to say that consciousness (thought) cannot take what exists and transform it into other types of existence, but this is not what is meant by a student creates reality.

[AnssiH]

Are you just trolling now? Some of your text gives me that impression, or maybe you are just not paying enough attention... I'll give this one more stab.

 

Most would say that quantum mechanics is a theory. So, sure, as a theory QM can use principles to explain phenomena, such as "undefined information". This is not what I was talking about. What I was saying is that, while QM can explain phenomena because it is a theory, there is not any valid explanation of QM as a theory, only internally consistent interpretations of it. In other words, there is no valid explanation how a quanta transitions from one energy level to another, or how the wave transitions into a particle or a particle into a wave. Or, perhaps I error and you have such an explanation ?

 

You are just getting confused of the topic, which was an analysis of explanations of undefined information. If you actually are on topic, then why would you insist that such analysis must start from the assumption that our world view is based on naive realistic perception of "quanta transitions between energy levels"? The question is "what do we mean by energy levels", i,e, what sort of information is taken to mean "energy levels". This is very much a question of terminology and meaning of definitions, and that analysis most certainly cannot start from the presumption that the terminology you are using, reflects the true nature of the information your terminology refers to.

 

But, how do you know this to be a true statement ?

 

How do I know that reality is not actually known to be quantum mechanical? Seriously?

 

OK, this helps clarify the role of the fundamental equation, because it sure does appear in many post that the fundamental equation is presented in such a way as an interpretation of reality. Nice to know such thinking is false.

 

It has also been said unbelievably many times that this is not an ontological argument (apart from amounting to evidence that that physics theories are not really ontological arguments either). The only times when it has been referred to as an interpretation of reality, that means that it is a notation system that can be used to represent any sorts of inductive expectations. That means that in principle, it can be used to represent any world view, which also means it can be used to represent reality. But it doesn't in itself amount to anything else but a notation system, and via mathematical tools, an analysis tool about some important symmetry issues.

 

But you miss my point, there is not "a correct" interpretation, but many. Just as there are many correct interpretations of QM, there are many different correct (internally consistent) interpretations of what DD means, not only his interpretation. Thus, it really does not matter if you or me or anyone else are interpreting as DD does, only that your interpretation is also as correct as his.

 

It is very hard to understand how you mean that. If you are referring to the fundamental fact that human communication is never completely unambiguous, then yes of course we have the same issues in communicating this as in communicating any logical relationships (the means to communicate that relationship are subject to interpretation).

 

Is that what you were referring to?

 

Yes, this is exactly what the radical constructivist means, that the consciousness creates reality, see how silly the words are.

 

Trust me, that's not what constructivism means. It's the paradigm conflict that makes you so convinced. I can't be sure how the writer of that particular text meant it (don't really care much either), but think about a meaningful definition for "constructivism"; why would anyone call a purely idealistic position constructivism, instead of idealism? Who ever came up with that word, clearly wanted to express a position that is not idealism nor pure materialism (or however he understood "materialsm").

 

The word "constructivism" is referring to the idea that the structure of reality that we have in our mind, reflects our own means of representing reality (or more accurately, inductive expectations), i,e, that we "construct" all the definitions in our mind.

 

In that sense, it is not very rare position, very many physicists, heavy hitters and lightweights alike, have expressed exactly that position. Probably a lot of people who think it is quite rational position, just don't label themselves as such. I'm sure our own Qfwfq would identify largely with constructivistic position, for instance. Not so sure he would like to call himself as such.

 

As you say, a much more rational position to hold is that reality is prior to consciousness, and the two form a union within consciousness such that the reality in-of-itself is not known, and here we are in 100% agreement.

 

Note that "reality in itself is not known" is exactly what I was referring to when I said "reality is not actually known to be quantum mechanical". It means that it is not rational to base our ideas of ontology and epistemology to the assumption that our ontological beliefs are correct (i.e., to believe that "map is the territory")

 

So if you are at all interested of what DD is actually analyzing, then you need to start thinking about the mechanisms that translate regular features of something undefined into a sensible terminology of objects and dynamics. Quantum mechanics is just such a terminology, and only one of many possibilities (different approximations lead to different terminologies)

 

Now, this is not to say that consciousness (thought) cannot take what exists and transform it into other types of existence, but this is not what is meant by a student creates reality.

 

From a constructivistic stance, it is a moot to ask "what exists in reality", because it is explicitly clear that that question cannot be answered; every answer just amounts to an undefendable argument about terminology, since different valid terminologies would just give different equally valid answers. We can only know how to validly represent inductive expectations. That is what DD's analysis is about.

 

-Anssi

[Qfwfq]

Anssi try not to lose your patience. It is quite understandable if people find difficulty in figuring out exactly what you mean by the things you say, with all your semantic idiosynchrasies. It is less reasonable for you to make certain rather bold statements. You can't expect too much from people who strive to understand you, consider this example:

 

It means, for instance, that quantum mechanical objects are not realistic objects, they are just a way to represent something in predictive fashion.

In order for this to be "quite a bit more rational position" you would need to specify unambiguously what you mean by "quantum mechanical objects" and even by whether they are realistic or not.

 

Rade, a lot of people would say that quantum mechanics is a theory, but some would say it is a formalism. It's a tricky issue that I won't detail in this thread. Also, if you talk about atomic orbital transitions, there actually is a model which matches very well with selection rules and classical electrodynamics. It's all wierd stuff but this isn't the essential anyway as far goes interpreting quantum physics, which is a much more subtle thing.

[AnssiH]

I'm trying to balance between brevity and clarity, it's a tricky act :I I am probably also expecting people to remember too much what was said few posts ago, and I'm trying to not repeat the context too much.

 

Anyway, "quantum mechanical objects" was referring to any defined entities that play a role in a quantum mechanical world view, i.e., any entity that is used as a part of a quantum mechanical description of anything.

 

"they are not realistic objects" was referring to them being part of our representation of some information, and the fact that we can't actually know whether that representation is what the information actually is. Which is exactly the same as saying, we can't claim that to be the only valid way to represent the exact same expectations of the exact same information.

 

That of course applies to any world view, not just quantum mechanics. It was just brought up because I think it is easy to see how the different interpretations are essentially a different language representation of the same thing. That fact extends to any defined objects of any kind of world view, when you get down to the epistemological fundamentals.

 

I just wish people wouldn't always try to understand this thing by first making a guess or an assumption as to what it really is that is-to-be-explained and then trying to think how such a thing can be perceived and then explained. When they do that, they always miss the point that an explanation starts from the point when nothing has been explained, which is to say, from undefined information. From that point on, it is possible to make epistemological arguments. For instance, we can say that it is only possible to generate definitions from some kinds of regularities, and so on. I feel it should be relatively simple to follow the logic from that point on.

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

AnissH..thank you. You say that you begin all explanation with 'something undefined'. I would suggest that well before something undefined, first is "something known & unknown", So, this sequence:

 

1. Something

2. Something unknown & known

3. Something known

[differentiation process]

4. Something known & undefined

[transformation process]

5. Something known & defined

 

Something undefined is possible only after something is known as a thing-of-itself as opposed to the thing-in-itself which can never be known fully. After the something becomes known as a thing-of-itself to the person that knows it, in order for the person to communicate what they know to others they must "define" it. Definition of something is the final stage of the process of explanation of something.

 

[Edit] Consider when DD claims that "the past is what you know". For me, what this means is that there is a logical process in this "knowing of the past". The first stage is that what is known of the past is UNDEFINED, thus my #4 above. The second stage is that definition may be placed on what is known about the past, but only if it is necessary to transfer the information to another human, or perhaps a machine.

 

Also is the issue of what is meant to say something (such as the past, to use DD terminology) comes to be known or unknown. As shown above, I claim that something (from the past) comes to be known and unknown simultaneously, unknown as a thing-in-itself while known as a thing-of-itself. This is what I meant when I said that it is possible for reality to be known using formalism of quantum mechanics. Thus, to attempt to define what is unknown is a logical dead end, only something known as a thing-of-itself can be transformed from something undefined into something defined. Thus, ALL EXPLANATION begins with something known (as a thing-of-itself) that is also at the same time undefined, e.g., "something known & undefined".

[Rade]

Rade, a lot of people would say that quantum mechanics is a theory, but some would say it is a formalism. It's a tricky issue that I won't detail in this thread.

I would be very interested if you would begin a new thread on this topic, because I have no idea what you mean. Do you mean those that think QM is a formalism do not consider it to also be a theory ? As you say, if you wish to respond, I think it best to start a new thread topic.

[Rade]

...That is a result that would not appear intuitively to most people.

Concerning this comment in your post#11 how the approach of DD is not intuitive, I read what you said about coming to understand how a large set of regularities obey defined laws of physics, and I did not find that I needed anything presented by DD to understand what you said ? I mean, I would be shocked if any large set of regularities of something undefined did not obey defined laws of physics. So, I still wait for something valid presented by DD that would not be intuitive to a trained physicist, since you restricted your example to science of physics. Do you have any other examples for other sciences, such as biology ?

[Qfwfq]

Anyway, "quantum mechanical objects" was referring to any defined entities that play a role in a quantum mechanical world view,

So, then, what is your notion of "a quantum mechanical world view"?

 

I just wish people wouldn't always try to understand this thing by first making a guess or an assumption as to what it really is that is-to-be-explained and then trying to think how such a thing can be perceived and then explained.

Who? Me?

 

I would be very interested if you would begin a new thread on this topic, because I have no idea what you mean.

I'm not sure it's a good idea. What is prerequisite would be to properly understand the von Neumann formulation of quantum physics.

 

Do you mean those that think QM is a formalism do not consider it to also be a theory ?

No, I simply distinguish between quantum formalism and quantum physics. Lack of familiarity with these is a great part of what causes so much misunderstanding.

[Rade]

I'm not sure it's a good idea. What is prerequisite would be to properly understand the von Neumann formulation of quantum physics.

As you wish. But too bad, because I reject the quantum reality presented by von Neumann..nothing more than Radical Constructivism at its worst, the direct claim that only a thing with a consciousness has the privilege to create reality. As I understand von Neumann, physical objects have no attributes prior to a consciousness observer (note, he does not claim they have attributes the observer can never know as a thing-in-itself, but he claims that all attributes pop into reality the moment of the observation). Thus for von Neumann consciousness is the ultimate reality, a position I do not agree with. But, maybe you have a different understanding of von Neumann ?

[Qfwfq]

J. von Neumann: Die mathematischen Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer, Berlin 1932

English translation: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, 1955

 

I reject the quantum reality presented by von Neumann..nothing more than Radical Constructivism at its worst, the direct claim that only a thing with a consciousness has the privilege to create reality.

I was not referring to anything beyond his description of the measurement. Although his analysis of the measurement problem had a role in the "conscious observer" conjecture, I wouldn't even say it can be attributed all that much to him and certainly it isn't the point of what I've been saying in these matters.

 

Note, I have never actually read his book, but a fundamental QM course in my studies was based on his formalism (along with later formal developments) and that is what I was referring to. Note, also, that his projection is still the best mathematical description of an ideal measurement, regardless of any metaphysical speculations, mystical meditations, folklore, anecdotes, urban myths or whatever plain BS that might be associated with these topics.

 

BTW decoherence is much more the current fashion than any conscious observer or other tomfoolery.

[Rade]

Quote of AnissH..."the idea with the event being "undefined" is that there are no properties to it"

Reading back though posts in this thread and found this comment. Sorry, but I have no idea what you are claiming here. I do not know what you mean when you relate event to properties.

 

The common sense definition of property is: a trait or attribute of a thing, as determined by the senses. Any "event" has at least two properties. First an event is an consequence of some action of something, it is something that can be measured if one so wishes to. This represents a property of it. Second, to say that an event is undefined means it must exist in the mind prior to the action of placing a definition. Defining is a human action. Prior existence to the act of placing definition is thus a second property of all events undefined.